# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  The Alt Right is an Ideologically Diverse Movement

## Tywysog Cymru

Highly renowned intellectual thinker Richard Spencer once said that the Alt-Right is a wide spectrum of beliefs.  I think I have unfairly lumped them into one group and treated them all like they are the same.  I came to this comclusion after doing some more research on people who identify as alt-right.  So lets take a look at the different types of people in the alt-right.  Please tell me if there are varieties that I left out.   Any similarities to actual alt-right twitter accounts may be coincidental (or maybe not).

@FashyGoyMemes

FashyGoyMemes is a proud Goyim, which is a Gentile.  His twitter pic is Taylor Swift with a photo-shopped swastika on her.  This is a very common type of alt-rightist on twitter.  He goes to twitter to talk about the latest news about the how Jews are trying to stop Donald Trump from being elected President.  He also tweets frog memes and secret alt-right messages in Taylor Swift Songs and the Angry Birds Movie.

@DethtooCUCKS

DethtooCUCKS is fourteen years old and spends way too much time on his computer.  His picture is of Donald Trump.  This type of alt-rightist might be more common than the first one.  He is very challenged when it comes to spelling but spells "Cuckservative" perfectly every time.  He likes to call people cucks whenever they disagree with him or if they insult Donald Trump.

@EdgyGoyim

EdgyGoyim is very edgy, you see.  This is also a common type of alt-rightist on twitter.  His picture is of Trump in a Nazi uniform.  He posts memes of Donald Trump putting "cucks" in gas chambers.  When confronted about his behavior he says "im just kiding, im not reely a nazi, im just making fun of polticol corctnses!"  Claims to be straight but would go gay for Milo Yiannopoulos.

@WhiteGirlsRMagic

WhiteGirlsRMagic is less common than the previous types, but still somewhat prevalent.  His picture is of a blonde woman standing in a field of wheat.  He tweets pics of attractive white women.  Claims that Jews are trying to destroy Aryan beauty.

 @ AlphaMale88

AlphaMale88 considers himself to be an alpha male.  This is a common Alt-rightist.  His pic is of a Nazi soldier.  He brags about how much of an alpha-male he is, but can't talk to women in real life.  Of course, he blames this on cultural Marxism ruining Western women.  He believes that people who are not racist let black men have sex with their wives.

@ProudNorseman

ProudNorseman is very reactionary.  This type of account is not common, but also not rare.  His pic is of a Norse god.  He is so reactionary, in fact, that he not only rejects the last 200 years, he rejects the last millennium.  He thinks that Christianity is a Jewish plot and that white people should go back to Paganism.  Don't call this man a basement dweller, he sometimes leaves his house to LARP as Thor at Comic Con!

@AryanGirl

AryanGirl is a female alt-rightist.  This is very rare.  Her pic is of a woman wearing some nationalist insignia.  This woman could get any alt-right man that she wants due to the huge gender imbalance in the movement.

Please don't hesitate to tell me if I missed something.

----------


## presence

@RonPaulliberty_alt

^^^likes to use a name that associates himself with ron or the liberty movement but really has no interest in ron's free market ideas or individual liberty

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

Sounds cool.

----------


## Origanalist

I hear they have a frog that smokes cigars and a dangerous f aggot also.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> I hear they have a frog that smokes cigars


FashyGoyMemes posts pics of Pepe.




> and a dangerous f aggot also.


Suspended from Twitter.

----------


## CPUd

There is also the political class:
12-year-old running Trump campaign office in Colorado

----------


## Origanalist

> FashyGoyMemes posts pics of Pepe.
> 
> 
> 
> Suspended from Twitter.


Well I don't agree with suspending him. There are tons of obnoxious people on Twitter.

----------


## adissa

None of those accounts are real.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> There is also the political class:
> 12-year-old running Trump campaign office in Colorado


Why am I not surprised?




> Well I don't agree with suspending him. There are tons of obnoxious people on Twitter.


Yeah, I thought the suspension went too far, I agree.




> None of those accounts are real.


No, but they are based on real accounts.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

I remember when the Ron Paul revolution had a grassroots fervor and a ton of enthusiasm and momentum behind it like the alt right does now. Those were the days.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I remember when the Ron Paul revolution had a grassroots fervor and a ton of enthusiasm and momentum behind it like the alt right does now. Those were the days.


It's many of the same people.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> It's many of the same people.


It's probably the last safe haven for libertarians who don't want to surrender their balls on a silver platter to the left.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> I remember when the Ron Paul revolution had a grassroots fervor and a ton of enthusiasm and momentum behind it like the alt right does now. Those were the days.


So did the Berniebros.




> It's probably the last safe haven for libertarians who don't want to surrender their balls on a silver platter to the left.


Let's fight the left by being exactly what they say we are!

----------


## PierzStyx

> It's probably the last safe haven for libertarians who don't want to surrender their balls on a silver platter to the left.


Instead they surrendered their brains and became Leftists.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Instead they surrendered their brains and became Leftists.


Yeah because letting in people who will vote against you is the hallmark of those with a brain.

----------


## adissa

> Let's fight the left by being exactly what they say we are!


And what is that, exactly?

----------


## undergroundrr

> Yeah because letting in people who will vote against you is the hallmark of those with a brain.


Let's start with, say, 1860. How many times have the American people voted against me just in presidential elections since then?  Hint: 
every 
single 
one 
of 
them.  
And yes, that includes Grover Cleveland.

----------


## dannno

> No, but they are based on real accounts.


No, they aren't, they are troll accounts and the article you posted is retarded.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Let's start with, say, 1860. How many times have the American people voted against me just in presidential elections since then?  Hint: 
> every 
> single 
> one 
> of 
> them.  
> And yes, that includes Grover Cleveland.


No, lets start closer to the current age and those who are recent arrivals, or who vote illegally.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> So did the Berniebros.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's fight the left by being exactly what they say we are!



So lets not use power when we win elections to advance our causes, restore Liberty, shrink government, restore choice, and secure the border as to assure the left cant rig the system with imported voters?

No, lets just lose elections by trying to be "more moral" then people who value victory at all costs.

----------


## TheCount

> It's probably the last safe haven for libertarians who don't want to surrender their balls on a silver platter to the left.


It's probably the last safe haven for libertarians _people who pretended to be libertarians when it was politically convenient to them_.


Fixed.

----------


## undergroundrr

> No, lets start closer to the current age and those who are recent arrivals, or who vote illegally.


Ah... selective data.  The bread and butter of climate change nazis and alt-righters.  I'll bet you sleep with a copy of IQ and the Wealth of Nations under your pillow.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Yeah because letting in people who will vote against you is the hallmark of those with a brain.


Allowing for the free market of ideas is absolutely a smart thing. That is what causes competition and the best ideas to rise to the top.

Thinking you have a right to control where others live and what they think with violence is the hallmark of a brainless fascist.

----------


## TheCount

> No, lets start closer to the current age and those who are recent arrivals, or who vote illegally.


Recent arrivals do not vote.


Let's talk about those who vote illegally.  Do you have any facts on that, or is it based upon feelings that are shared by your internet support group?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> And what is that, exactly?


The left calls people on the right racists, and the alt-right fights back by being racists!




> No, they aren't, they are troll accounts and the article you posted is retarded.


It's not an article, and how do you know that these accounts are trolls?




> So lets not use power when we win elections to advance our causes, restore Liberty, shrink government, restore choice, and secure the border as to assure the left cant rig the system with imported voters?
> 
> No, lets just lose elections by trying to be "more moral" then people who value victory at all costs.


How many national elections have pro-liberty people won in the last 90 years?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> It's probably the last safe haven for libertarians _people who pretended to be libertarians when it was politically convenient to them_.
> 
> 
> Fixed.


You mean Gary Johnson?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Ah... selective data.  The bread and butter of climate change nazis and alt-righters.  I'll bet you sleep with a copy of IQ and the Wealth of Nations under your pillow.


So anything that proves you wrong is "selective data"?.

No, I sleep with a Cetme next to my bed, I keep that on the bookshelf and on my hard drive.

More over you nor anyone else has disproved that book nor the fact that IQ determines the success of a nation/group.

----------


## TheCount

> You mean Gary Johnson?


No.  Gary Johnson doesn't pretend to follow the party line of the Libertarian party; he is honest about his political opinions.


This is different from a person who talks about freedom when what they actually want has nothing to do with freedom.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Allowing for the free market of ideas is absolutely a smart thing. That is what causes competition and the best ideas to rise to the top.
> 
> Thinking you have a right to control where others live and what they think with violence is the hallmark of a brainless fascist.


Does letting in tens of millions of people who will lower wages and increase the cost of living do anything that makes that costs worth it? No, it does not.

I do have the right as an American to deny invaders access to my nation, and only a coward thinks violence is wrong when it comes to defending of what we love.





> Recent arrivals do not vote.
> 
> 
> Let's talk about those who vote illegally.  Do you have any facts on that, or is it based upon feelings that are shared by your internet support group?


Yes they do, When they become Citizens they get the right to vote, and the vote 8-2 for the leftists.

Yes, its called google, maybe you should enter Illegal immigrants voting, and you can learn for yourself, any links I will give you will bemoan and whine it is biased.




> The left calls people on the right racists, and the alt-right fights back by being racists!
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an article, and how do you know that these accounts are trolls?
> 
> 
> 
> How many national elections have pro-liberty people won in the last 90 years?


How many do you think will win if Amnesty is passed?

How can they be elected when the demographics make it harder and harder if not impossible to get elected.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> How many do you think will win if Amnesty is passed?
> 
> How can they be elected when the demographics make it harder and harder if not impossible to get elected.


Voting patterns change in 1916 most blacks were Republican and most white Southerners were Democrats.

----------


## undergroundrr

> So anything that proves you wrong is "selective data"?.


LOL. I was referring to the fact that you decided to throw out 150 years of hard data, including 60 years of which was previous to the 19th amendment.  In other words, white males consistently voted for people who shaved off the essential liberties of our country, brought us the Fed and the IRS, etc.




> No, I sleep with a Cetme next to my bed


Well, I guess you're okay with Spaniards.




> I keep that on the bookshelf and on my hard drive. More over you nor anyone else has disproved that book nor the fact that IQ determines the success of a nation/group.


Burden of proof is on the positive claimant.  I haven't been through all 3200 pages of this.  I also haven't read Mein Kampf or Das Kapital.  My understanding is that not only did Lynn and Vanhanen use selective and questionably extrapolated data (e.g. determining Vietnam's IQ by averaging China and Thailand?!?!) related to a test of dubious utility, they totally failed to establish firm links between their hypothesis and correlations found in that massaged data.  

And yes, I realize it makes me a cultural Marxist SJW useful idiot xenophiliac (!) cuckservative to say so. I'll take that over phrenologist any day.

----------


## TheCount

> Yes they do, When they become Citizens they get the right to vote, and the vote 8-2 for the leftists.


You use a very interesting definition of recent.





> Yes, its called google, maybe you should enter Illegal immigrants voting, and you can learn for yourself, any links I will give you will bemoan and whine it is biased.


K.  Googled it.  Nothing.

If you're not aware, Google searches do not give the same result to every person.  Instead, it provides you links to pages it thinks that you want to see.  Your internet habits have created for you a safe space which reinforces your feelings.  You'll need to provide links to actual facts if they exist.  (Which they do not.)

----------


## undergroundrr

> Your internet habits have created for you a safe space which reinforces your feelings.


So true. +rep

----------


## adissa

> The left calls people on the right racists, and the alt-right fights back by being racists!


Racist, lol.  The left calls everything racist and you fall for it.  Give me an example of their racism.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Does letting in tens of millions of people who will lower wages and increase the cost of living do anything that makes that costs worth it? No, it does not.
> 
> *First of all, wages are already artificially high. Secondly, the idea that immigration causes some drastic change in wages and the cost of living is a myth. Immigrants don't effect those things- government policy does. To quote an excellent article from FEE:
> 
> "This is the most common argument and also the one with the greatest amount of evidence rebutting it.  First, the displacement effect is small if it even affects natives at all.  Immigrants are typically attracted to growing regions and they increase the supply and demand sides of the economy once they are there, expanding employment opportunities.  Second, the debate over immigrant impacts on American wages is confined to the lower single digits  immigrants may increase the relative wages for some Americans by a tiny amount and decrease them by a larger amount for the few Americans who directly compete against them.  Immigrants likely compete most directly against other immigrants so the effects on less-skilled native-born Americans might be very small or even positive.
> 
> New research by Harvard professor George Borjas on the effect of the Mariel Boatlift  a giant shock to Miamis labor market that increased the size of its population by 7 percent in 42 days  finds large negative wage effects concentrated on Americans with less than a high school degree.  To put the scale of that shock to Miami in context, it would be as if 22.4 million immigrants moved to America in a six-week period  which will not happen.  Some doubt Borjas finding (here is Borjas response to the critics and here is a summary of the debate) but what is not in doubt is that immigration has increased the wages and income of Americans on net.  The smallest estimates immigration surplus, as it is called, is equal to about 0.24 percent of GDP  which excludes the gains to immigrants and just focuses on those of native-born Americans." https://fee.org/articles/15-common-a...ion-addressed/
> 
> Follow the link for the cited evidence for their claims.*
> ...


Responses in bold.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Racist, lol.  The left calls everything racist and you fall for it.  Give me an example of their racism.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> It's probably the last safe haven for libertarians _people who pretended to be libertarians when it was politically convenient to them_.
> 
> 
> Fixed.


Nope, the libertarian movement has fallen to pieces without Ron Paul in a direct leadership role. You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but your willful ignorance will only do more damage to the cause. Not every libertarian is happy being in an irrelevant little club for losers like you apparently are.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Nope, the libertarian movement has fallen to pieces without Ron Paul in a direct leadership role. You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but your willful ignorance will only do more damage to the cause. Not every libertarian is happy being in an irrelevant little club for losers like you apparently are.


We are way more relevant than the alt-right.  We actually have elected officials.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Responses in bold.


If the end result is threat, burden, or harm of our nation, culture, rights, wealth and happiness they are invaders.

Intent does not matter, only the end result.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Nope, the libertarian movement has fallen to pieces without Ron Paul in a direct leadership role. You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but your willful ignorance will only do more damage to the cause. Not every libertarian is happy being in an irrelevant little club for losers like you apparently are.


Dude you are based, do not stop.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> We are way more relevant than the alt-right.  We actually have elected officials.


Really? So then why did your Candidate lose the GOP primary and ours won?

Really? Where? Where are their Libertarian elected officials?

What have you done besides cost us races by slipping the vote?

Why has your movement done nothing, and thanks to self immolation views on immigration will never achieve anything?

----------


## TheCount

> Really? So then why did your Candidate lose the GOP primary and ours won?


Your candidate is the candidate who says that your movement does not exist?  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...right-movement

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Your candidate is the candidate who says that your movement does not exist?  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...right-movement


Why would he be honest to the lying Media?

So long as he wins who cares...Its time to put the Neo cons downs and hunt some leftist scum.

----------


## presence



----------


## CCTelander

> Why would he be honest to the lying Media?
> 
> So long as he wins who cares...*Its time to put the Neo cons downs and hunt some leftist scum.*



Given the way some of these Trump supporters and alt-right people have been slinging the term leftist at virtually anyone who disagrees with them, this should be of serious concern to a whole lot of us, IMO.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'll bet you sleep with a copy of IQ and the Wealth of Nations under your pillow.


What's wrong with "_The Wealth of Nations_"?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> What's wrong with "_The Wealth of Nations_"?


It proves them wrong, that is why they hate it.

The cant not accept the idea that some groups are better then others at some things, that some groups are smarter, do better, etc, as it proves their "blank slate" view of humanity to be a egalitarian drive lie.

----------


## otherone

> The cant not accept the idea that some groups are better then others at some things, that some groups are smarter, do better, etc, as it proves their "blank slate" view of humanity to be a egalitarian drive lie.


You don't believe that an individual should be judged on his merit?

----------


## undergroundrr

> What's wrong with "_The Wealth of Nations_"?


Oh no, LOL. Not "The Wealth of Nations," "IQ and the Wealth of Nations." A poorly updated Nazi eugenics tract whose flawed data sets and absurd extrapolations make "An Inconvenient Truth" look like hard science. This book is apparently the primary religious text of the /pol/ whites only club.

When you hear LE going on about IQ, this is where it originates.

----------


## TheCount

> The cant not accept the idea that some groups are better then others at some things, that some groups are smarter, do better, etc, as it proves their "blank slate" view of humanity to be a egalitarian drive lie.


Groups don't do things.

Individuals do things.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Oh no, LOL. Not "The Wealth of Nations," "IQ and the Wealth of Nations." A poorly updated Nazi eugenics tract whose flawed data sets and absurd extrapolations make "An Inconvenient Truth" look like hard science. This book is apparently the primary religious text of the /pol/ whites only club.
> 
> When you hear LE going on about IQ, this is where it originates.


"That`s not an Argument"

Name calling people does not work.

You can not stand the fact science is proving you "blank slaters" wrong.




> Groups don't do things.
> 
> Individuals do things.


And what do you call a group of like minded individuals with common goals and pool recourse to achieve desired outcomes?

Please do go on, tell how groups do not exist, we are all just ourselves and out stoner nonsense.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> You don't believe that an individual should be judged on his merit?


No.

I do not care of the merit of an 85 IQ would be immigrant, he will always be a burden, always consumer more then he takes out, and as stats show will largely vote for marxism. 

What merit does he have that a person with an IQ of 100 not possess and possess more of?

Why would I need a 85 IQ immigrant to do blank when I could have an American do them same, or better yet automate the task, resulting in a more skilled job, with higher wages for an American, all the while decreasing the welfare roles, the tax burden, the cost of living and reducing the size of the leftist voter blocs?

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

If anyone is sick of the endless cries of waaaycism and  wants to read an actual good criticism of the alt-right, here's one:

https://westcoastrxers.com/2016/08/3...rom-the-right/

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Oh no, LOL. Not "The Wealth of Nations," "IQ and the Wealth of Nations." A poorly updated Nazi eugenics tract whose flawed data sets and absurd extrapolations make "An Inconvenient Truth" look like hard science. This book is apparently the primary religious text of the /pol/ whites only club.
> 
> When you hear LE going on about IQ, this is where it originates.


The Nazis were none-too-fond of IQ tests. After all, Aryans weren't at the top of the IQ hierarchy.

As a general rule, anyone who understands a position purely from reading its critics doesn't understand said position. No exceptions.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> The Nazis were none-too-fond of IQ tests. After all, Aryans weren't at the top of the IQ hierarchy.
> 
> As a general rule, anyone who understands a position purely from reading its critics doesn't understand said position. No exceptions.


This..

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> If the end result is threat, burden, or harm of our nation, culture, rights, wealth and happiness they are invaders.
> 
> Intent does not matter, only the end result.


PierzStyx just handed your ass to you.  

I'd be embarrassed to continue posting in this thread after that.

----------


## undergroundrr

> The Nazis were none-too-fond of IQ tests. After all, Aryans weren't at the top of the IQ hierarchy.
> 
> As a general rule, anyone who understands a position purely from reading its critics doesn't understand said position. No exceptions.


I've read its supporters too.  Sorry, but I think I'll eke out time to read "The Wealth of Nations" first.  I highly doubt you or RoL finished "IQ and..." from cover to cover either.  On the miniscule chance one of you did, I can't imagine the premises were thoroughly questioned and sources checked, as one should routinely do with a scientific hypothesis.

----------


## undergroundrr

> The Nazis were none-too-fond of IQ tests.


Hence updated.




> After all, Aryans weren't at the top of the IQ hierarchy.


Neither are whites. So you should be delighted that Asians are overtaking Mexicans as US immigrants.

----------


## undergroundrr

> "That`s not an Argument"


What do your scare quotes mean?




> Name calling people does not work.


I don't think I did any ad homs there. Are you talking about Nazi eugenics tracts? https://archive.org/details/cu31924032226759




> You can not stand the fact science is proving you "blank slaters" wrong.


Bringing Pinker into it too?  Please, provide us with the necessary reading list so that we can better understand your nuanced worldview.  There, I've added Lundborg to it.

----------


## undergroundrr

> If anyone is sick of the endless cries of waaaycism and  wants to read an actual good criticism of the alt-right, here's one:
> 
> https://westcoastrxers.com/2016/08/3...rom-the-right/


Thanks for the link.  Do you favor this article because because it attacks the style but doesn't challenge the premises of alt.right?

----------


## adissa

> We are way more relevant than the alt-right.  We actually have elected officials.


For now. The alt-right is about to elect the leader of the free world. Libertarians can only dream. And when they're enjoying all the freedom we have 4 years from now, they'll convert too if they have a brain in their head, which is questionable.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> The alt-right is about to elect the leader of the free world.


Not the way the polls are looking right now.

----------


## CCTelander

> PierzStyx just handed your ass to you.  
> 
> I'd be embarrassed to continue posting in this thread after that.



That one has no shame, and is thus incapable of embarrassment.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> We are way more relevant than the alt-right.  We actually have elected officials.


Elected officials who don't get a whole lot done, and have lost a great deal of momentum in recent years.

----------


## otherone

> Elected officials who don't get a whole lot done, and have lost a great deal of momentum in recent years.


The Liberty movement is dead when state-induced fear of brown people supersedes fear of the state itself.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> The Liberty movement is dead when state-induced fear of brown people supersedes fear of the state itself.


It may be dead because the squishes are showing their true colors under the pressure. The public doesn't want to be led by whiny, half-liberal crybabies. If that's what the liberty movement is becoming under the stewardship of people like Johnson/Weld, it is better off dead.

----------


## undergroundrr

> The public doesn't want to be led by whiny, half-liberal crybabies.


Yeah, that's why they elected Clinton to 2 terms, W to 2 terms and Obama to 2 terms.  You're on solid ground there.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Yeah, that's why they elected Clinton to 2 terms, W to 2 terms and Obama to 2 terms.  You're on solid ground there.


Rhetorically, all of those men presented themselves as strong leaders to the voting public.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Rhetorically, all of those men presented themselves as strong leaders to the voting public.


Ha!  "Ah feeeel yur paeen!", "kindler, gentler."  LOL. Please, find me an Obama alpha male rhetorical moment.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Ha!  "Ah feeeel yur paeen!", "kindler, gentler."  LOL. Please, find me an Obama alpha male rhetorical moment.


Obama's one of the strongest orators the country has ever seen from a President. I just don't think you're intelligent enough to be able to understand politics, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Obama's one of the strongest orators the country has ever seen from a President. I just don't think you're intelligent enough to be able to understand politics, or you're being deliberately obtuse.


Okay, you said he presented himself rhetorically as a strong leader. Then you said he was a strong orator. Those are two different things. I'm looking for this oratory about strength in leadership. Everything in Obama's persona is about compassion and hope.

Don't get me wrong, he doesn't bat an eye about droning little kids to death.  Maybe that's what you meant?  But his oratory is 180 degrees away from that.  How is that obtuse?

Back to the point, if you're going to go down that road, Hillary Clinton is a massively better orator than trump, who has basically the weakest podium skills of just about anybody who has ever run for President. Nobody can ever figure out what he's just said.

----------


## TheCount

> Nobody can ever figure out what he's just said.


For his supporters, that's a strength.   He's a presidential rorschach test.  They all see what they want.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Elected officials who don't get a whole lot done, and have lost a great deal of momentum in recent years.


We've accomplished a lot through educating people of issues they hadn't thought much about before (sound money, the Federal Reserve).  The liberty movement was probably a huge factor in stopping America from attacking Syria in 2013.

----------


## CPUd



----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> PierzStyx just handed your ass to you.  
> 
> I'd be embarrassed to continue posting in this thread after that.


And you claim anything you want, it does not make it so.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> The Liberty movement is dead when state-induced fear of brown people supersedes fear of the state itself.


Yeah, it has nothing to do with millions of new people who vote against you, right?

How many Liberty minded people are in office in say CA or NY?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> What do your scare quotes mean?


No one tell him, its funnier..





> I don't think I did any ad homs there. Are you talking about Nazi eugenics tracts? https://archive.org/details/cu31924032226759


Calling people Nazis does not make them wrong, it only makes you look like a fool.




> Bringing Pinker into it too?  Please, provide us with the necessary reading list so that we can better understand your nuanced worldview.  There, I've added Lundborg to it.


Democracy the God the Failed.
The Bell curve.
Alien Nation by Peter Brimelow.
Adios America
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]The Rising Tide of Color 

[/COLOR][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588235294118)]The last one did see the rise of Imperial Japan, a 2nd world war, and the rise of Islam as well as it leading to a 3rd world war. its a shame we did not take his wisdom at face value.[/COLOR]

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> We've accomplished a lot through educating people of issues they hadn't thought much about before (sound money, the Federal Reserve).  The liberty movement was probably a huge factor in stopping America from attacking Syria in 2013.


And Rand squandered that successful educational work with his terrible pandering approach over the past three years. Bottom line is that we need to get more hardcore, or we're finished. Populist right wing movements will continue to bleed us out if we are a bunch of SJW-friendly, quasi-leftist pansies like Gary Johnson.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> And Rand squandered that successful educational work with his terrible pandering approach over the past three years. Bottom line is that we need to get more hardcore, or we're finished. Populist right wing movements will continue to bleed us out if we are a bunch of SJW-friendly, quasi-leftist pansies like Gary Johnson.


How did Rand Paul pander?

Johnson isn't our leader.

----------


## undergroundrr

> No one tell him, its funnier..


I'll just guess Python and go with that.




> Democracy the God the Failed.
> The Bell curve.
> Alien Nation by Peter Brimelow.
> Adios America
> [COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]The Rising Tide of Color 
> 
> [/COLOR][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588235294118)]The last one did see the rise of Imperial Japan, a 2nd world war, and the rise of Islam as well as it leading to a 3rd world war. its a shame we did not take his wisdom at face value.[/COLOR]


Thanks!

I sincerely appreciate all this.  It's genuinely helpful.  I believe you've dug deeply into this branch of (ahem) knowledge.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I'll just guess Python and go with that.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> I sincerely appreciate all this.  It's genuinely helpful.  I believe you've dug deeply into this branch of (ahem) knowledge.



Better then your "we are all the same, interchangeable cogs, and all want the same things, all value equally Liberty and any facts that prove other wise dont exist" nonsense.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> How did Rand Paul pander?
> 
> Johnson isn't our leader.


Pro mass immigration, pro open borders, trying to get into bed with Sharpton, "Detroit republican", etc.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> And Rand squandered that successful educational work with his terrible pandering approach over the past three years. Bottom line is that we need to get more hardcore, or we're finished. Populist right wing movements will continue to bleed us out if we are a bunch of SJW-friendly, quasi-leftist pansies like Gary Johnson.


May not be a bad thing to be honest, if LIBs want open borders, mass immigration, replacement then it should not be looked as as a bad outcome rather then a natural action.

Right leaning Nationalist groups will make up for lost ground and lost time...

----------


## otherone

> Yeah, it has nothing to do with millions of new people who vote against you, right?


And there goes my proof.  It's frikkin Pavlovian.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Pro mass immigration, pro open borders,


Proof?




> trying to get into bed with Sharpton,


Proof?




> "Detroit republican", etc.


How dare he try to appeal to voters in Detroit!

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Pro mass immigration, pro open borders, trying to get into bed with Sharpton, "Detroit republican", etc.


Hey William Tell
If you want to insult me have the balls to do it where everyone else can see it.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Proof?
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?
> 
> 
> 
> How dare he try to appeal to voters in Detroit!


http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Rand...mmigration.htm

If voters in Detroit could be appealed too do you think things would be 1/110th as bad as they are now?

How can you appeal to people who are for the most part entirely dependent on the state for living, and up to 52% illiterate?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> And there goes my proof.  It's frikkin Pavlovian.


And here is my proof, when confront by facts you Egalitarians always retreat, lie, deny, or freak out.

We have no obligation to be dis/replaced and out voted in our nation, but none, and you guys cant make a case for allowing in people who will vote against us, our rights, our future.

----------


## undergroundrr

> ... all want the same things, all value equally Liberty ...


All individuals want different things.  

Groups can't "want" anything. Groups don't have communal brains. No race, creed, religion, nationality, etc. has a hive mind. *That's why* you and I believe in individual rights, not some oxymoron called social justice.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> And you claim anything you want, it does not make it so.


That's true.  But its also true that anyone with a basic understanding of debate and argumentation can see that you did in fact have your ass handed to you.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> All individuals want different things.  
> 
> Groups can't "want" anything. Groups don't have communal brains. No race, creed, religion, nationality, etc. has a hive mind. *That's why* you and I believe in individual rights, not some oxymoron called social justice.


And this is why you guys will never win... You can not think in any abstracts.

Groups of individuals do want different things. That is why they live apart from each other as not doing so will create conflict.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> That's true.  But its also true that anyone with a basic understanding of debate and argumentation can see that you did in fact have your ass handed to you.


You are a classic Gamma male.

----------


## otherone

> And here is my proof, when confront by facts you Egalitarians always retreat, lie, deny, or freak out.
> 
> We have no obligation to be dis/replaced and out voted in our nation, but none, and you guys cant make a case for allowing in people who will vote against us, our rights, our future.


Here you go again with your kollektiv.  Who are you referring to, other than your alt-right circle jerk?
Do you not understand that you are being manipulated with fear?  You sound as bad as the climate-change crowd.  The state really has you by the balls, ese.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> How did Rand Paul pander?
> 
> Johnson isn't our leader.


He became a chamber of commerce Republican after stating correctly that " a chamber of commerce Republican won't win the Presidency in 2016."

Talking about extending voting rights (not a libertarian concept) while never stating to End the Fed or end the wars on the campaign trail.

That whole shameful deal where he threw the Confederate Flag under the bus to win brownie points with SJWs in lieu of the Dylan Roof shooting.

The embarrassing photo op with Al Sharpton. Etc.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Here you go again with your kollektiv.  Who are you referring to, other than your alt-right circle jerk?
> Do you not understand that you are being manipulated with fear?  You sound as bad as the climate-change crowd.  The state really has you by the balls, ese.


The classic "you are afraid" trope that leftist love to bring up.

You have to us why letting in  people by the millions who vote against us is a good thing and will not give power to the left, you cant.




Tell us why and how this does not result in a total loss for us?

We (liberty minded people) are waiting.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> He became a chamber of commerce Republican after stating correctly that " a chamber of commerce Republican won't win the Presidency in 2016."
> 
> Talking about extending voting rights (not a libertarian concept) while never stating to End the Fed or end the wars on the campaign trail.
> 
> That whole shameful deal where he threw the Confederate Flag under the bus to win brownie points with SJWs in lieu of the Dylan Roof shooting.
> 
> The embarrassing photo op with Al Sharpton. Etc.


You left out immigration fanboy. 

You never extend voting rights to group who will vote against you, this has been the norm for all of time, why? Because it is not in your best interests to do so.

I have no obligation to raise an army,  arm it, and unleash it against myself.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You are a classic Gamma male.


Thankfully you and I will likely never cross paths outside the digital as I'm physically repulsed by such profound stupidity, but rest assured I'm no push-over; moreover it's a dead giveaway that calling someone out physically on the Internet is a sure sign of a lightweight keyboard commando.

I'm actually fighting back the impulse to pity you.  

All hat, no cattle.

----------


## otherone

> The classic "you are afraid" trope that leftist love to bring up.


This is an unsupported claim.  What is laughable about you is you are just as much a "cuck" for the state as those neocons you purport to despise.  Your willingness to trade my freedom to salve your hysterical xenophobia makes you no friend of the Liberty Movement.  Ron Paul's objective was to curtail the the central government, you wish to expand it's power.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Thankfully you and I will likely never cross paths outside the digital as I'm physically repulsed by such profound stupidity, but rest assured I'm no push-over; moreover it's a dead giveaway that calling someone out physically on the Internet is a sure sign of a lightweight keyboard commando.
> 
> I'm actually fighting back the impulse to pity you.  
> 
> All hat, no cattle.


You mad bro?

You support bring in people by the millions who vote against you, then whine about how your rights and wealth being voted away and nothing being done to counter it. You have less then no room to call anyone profoundly stupid.

You are mad because you have lost the debate, the culture and the Info war.  

Its understandable.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> This is an unsupported claim.  What is laughable about you is you are just as much a "cuck" for the state as those neocons you purport to despise.  Your willingness to trade my freedom to salve your hysterical xenophobia makes you no friend of the Liberty Movement.  Ron Paul's objective was to curtail the the central government, you wish to expand it's power.


No, I am partner in the social contract, I pay them to secure the nation, a job they are willfully failing to do. So they need to secure the damn border and stop giving welfare to illegals are we need our money back as they have broken the contract.

No I am not a Neo Con, I do not think in everyone is "An American dying to get out", nor should we try and be world police

What freedom of yours am I trading?


How are you not trading my rights (1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th, 9th, 10th Amendment) by supporting an open border and allowing if not cheering the invasion of people who support ""hate" speech" laws, gun control laws, and vote for the marxists 8-2?

We have real data and stats that back up the end result of mass immigration is the loss of Liberty/rights, an end result which you claim to not support but support that which will cause said end result.

----------


## otherone

> No, I am partner in the social contract, I pay them to secure the nation, a job they are willfully failing to do. So_ they need to secure the damn border and stop giving welfare to illegals_ are we need our money back as they have broken the contract.


Eliminating the latter will ensure the former.




> What freedom of yours am I trading?


In practical terms, you are advocating for a police state.  National ID cards (papers), random checks, and people spying on each other.  I do not wish to live in an ever-expanding police state.  Am I required to check the citizenship of my neighbor who mows my lawn?  As a free man, I may associate with whomever I please.  It's not the Fedgov's damn business.  I may travel wherever I wish, without seeking permission from the state. I may do business with whomever I wish, without getting governmental approval.




> How are you not trading my rights (1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th, 9th, 10th Amendment) by supporting an open border and allowing if not cheering the invasion of people who support ""hate" speech" laws, gun control laws, and vote for the marxists 8-2?


The market should decide who enters  the country.  People who come to work can not vote.  In addition, I advocate repealing the relevant portions of the fourteenth amendment.

In all regards, government is always the problem, and never the solution.  It uses fear to manipulate both the left and right, and it's sole purpose is expanding it's own power.

----------


## TheCount

> 


Please explain the difference between that and this poor microsoft paint update:

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Eliminating the latter will ensure the former.



Once again, how can you eliminate welfare with half the nation on the dole, and importing millions of more welfare cases?

You never answer this.

Do you think you are going to get elected? 

Do you think they will vote for you?




> In practical terms, you are advocating for a police state.  National ID cards (papers), random checks, and people spying on each other.  I do not wish to live in an ever-expanding police state.  Am I required to check the citizenship of my neighbor who mows my lawn?  As a free man, I may associate with whomever I please.  It's not the Fedgov's damn business.  I may travel wherever I wish, without seeking permission from the state. I may do business with whomever I wish, without getting governmental approval.


 Why do we have a police/spy state? To fight terrorism, why do we have terrorism? Because we allow in Islamic/third world cultures. But great way to avoid the issue.




> The market should decide who enters  the country.  People who come to work can not vote.  In addition, I advocate repealing the relevant portions of the fourteenth amendment.
> 
> In all regards, government is always the problem, and never the solution.  It uses fear to manipulate both the left and right, and it's sole purpose is expanding it's own power.


No, the owners of the nation, the American people have the right to decide who, why, how many and if they may come on, way to show your hand. "The market should" well the market is not the perfect tool for all actions, no tool is.

Yes, they do vote, they vote illegally.

They effect the census. Why do you think CA/NY have so many Electoral college votes? Because they count Immigrants just like the south counted slaves to boost the number of seats in the House. They also displace Americans in the same/other states.

You dont need to, Citizenship and immigration are the powers of Congress, the Supreme Court has ruled this many times.

Once again it is a weapon being used against us, why not turn it on the leftist/Globalist?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Please explain the difference between that and this poor microsoft paint update:


Those who can be original, copy.

----------


## otherone

> Once again, how can you eliminate welfare with half the nation on the dole, and importing millions of more welfare cases?


LOL.  Can you?

----------


## TheCount

> Those who can be original, copy.


Thank you for the confirmation that there is no difference.

----------


## otherone

> Why do we have a police/spy state? To fight terrorism,


Turn off the MsM and step away from the koolaid.

----------


## TheCount

> Once again, how can you eliminate welfare with half the nation on the dole, and importing millions of more welfare cases?


Oh, oh, do you do it by creating an entirely new welfare benefit of child care which you suddenly promise to the people 60 days before the election because you want to improve your chances of being elected?

----------


## otherone

> Oh, oh, do you do it by creating an entirely new welfare benefit of child care which you suddenly promise to the people 60 days before the election because you want to improve your chances of being elected?


What's interesting about this election is that the orange-faced leftist orangutan gets slavish devotion, yet a respectable paleoconservative, Patrick Buchanan, is a historical footnote.

----------


## TheCount

> What's interesting about this election is that the orange-faced leftist orangutan gets slavish devotion, yet a respectable paleoconservative, Patrick Buchanan, is a historical footnote.


That would be because the slavish fanboys of Trump are not supporting him for the reasons that they openly claim on websites such as this.  This is the only theory which explains all of their inconsistencies regarding his various policy proposals, including supporting diametrically opposite policies from him after one of his flip flops.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> LOL.  Can you?



One more time. How can you eliminate welfare with half the nation on the dole, and importing millions of more welfare cases every year?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> What's interesting about this election is that the orange-faced leftist orangutan gets slavish devotion, yet a respectable paleoconservative, Patrick Buchanan, is a historical footnote.





> That would be because the slavish fanboys of Trump are not supporting him for the reasons that they openly claim on websites such as this.  This is the only theory which explains all of their inconsistencies regarding his various policy proposals, including supporting diametrically opposite policies from him after one of his flip flops.



The Establishment/Media torpedoed him as well, why? Because he threaten the existing order of things. Which is the same thing Trump is doing, only he has the power of the Internet and riding the wave of righteous anger of the American people.

More over we know that if we do not stop immigration NOW, we will no longer be able to win as the leftists have imported enough voters that they can rig the election in their favor.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Oh, oh, do you do it by creating an entirely new welfare benefit of child care which you suddenly promise to the people 60 days before the election because you want to improve your chances of being elected?


Answer the question, but if you could you would, but you dont because you cant. Classic.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> I've read its supporters too. Sorry, but I think I'll eke out time to read "The Wealth of Nations" first. I highly doubt you or RoL finished "IQ and..." from cover to cover either. On the miniscule chance one of you did, I can't imagine the premises were thoroughly questioned and sources checked, as one should routinely do with a scientific hypothesis.


You haven't even read The Wealth of Nations? Ye Gods, man...

I haven't read IQ and the Wealth of Nations. I never claimed to. However, I have the intelligence and the basic decency not to call something I haven't read a "Nazi tract" or anything similar. It's my experience that the critics of hereditarianism constantly strawman the proponents and often simply argue for a softer hereditarian model instead of something actually distinct. On the alt-right as a whole, there is a tendency to overestimate race and underestimate statecraft and economics. On the other hand, race and IQ predicts wealth and levels of violence in the US exceedingly well.

A scientific issue takes a lot of reading and research to become truly well versed. If you're talking about how a book you've never read is a "Nazi tract", you clearly don't care about whatever truth value it may or may not contain. Even if it's totally wrong, there's no justification for that. It sounds like you just googled the criticisms leveled at it and said "That's good enough for me! It's a Nazi book!"

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Hence updated.


What?






> Neither are whites.


True.




> So you should be delighted that Asians are overtaking Mexicans as US immigrants.


First of all, there's no way of getting accurate numbers on how many illegals are in the country. Every statistic I've seen as terrible methodology behind it.

In any case, diversity is itself toxic and that includes diversity with Asians.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Thanks for the link. Do you favor this article because because it attacks the style but doesn't challenge the premises of alt.right?


I'm not too familiar with the author of the piece, but I think I can surmise that he's a classical reactionary (paleoreactionary, heroic-romantic reactionary/HRx, radical traditionalist ETC.) in the mold of Evola or Guenon. If I'm right, then he does have problems with some of the alt-right premises such as populism. The point of the article as I see it is that the alt-right is inherently flawed, regardless of the truth of some of the premises.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> First of all, there's no way of getting accurate numbers on how many illegals are in the country. Every statistic I've seen as terrible methodology behind it.
> ...


Aside from average consumption of base resources their is not.

Who says "hey I am breaking the law" to anyone?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I'm not too familiar with the author of the piece, but I think I can surmise that he's a classical reactionary (paleoreactionary, heroic-romantic reactionary/HRx, radical traditionalist ETC.) in the mold of Evola or Guenon. If I'm right, then he does have problems with some of the alt-right premises such as populism. The point of the article as I see it is that the alt-right is inherently flawed, regardless of the truth of some of the premises.


Flawed in what way?

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Flawed in what way?


If you're referring to the article I posted, it is about how the alt-right is modernity's bastard spawn. Different in some ways, but still pointing away from the transcendent. It's a radical traditionalist critique of the alt-right. I am something of a traditionalist, but not in the same vein as the guy who wrote the article so I only partially agree.

That said I do have my own problems with the alt-right and they are as follows:
Populism
Ethno-socialism
Anti-capitalism
Totalitarianism
Modernism
In-group egalitarianism

Now, I'm well aware that -- despite the sarcastic nature of the OP -- the alt-right is indeed an ideologically diverse movement and that many of those things don't apply to some within the movement. They do, however, apply to others. Those are the people I have a problem with.

I like some people within the alt-right, but there's a reason I identify with Neoreaction  instead.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> If you're referring to the article I posted, it is about how the alt-right is modernity's bastard spawn. Different in some ways, but still pointing away from the transcendent. It's a radical traditionalist critique of the alt-right. I am something of a traditionalist, but not in the same vein as the guy who wrote the article so I only partially agree.
> 
> That said I do have my own problems with the alt-right and they are as follows:
> Populism
> Ethno-socialism
> Anti-capitalism
> Totalitarianism
> Modernism
> In-group egalitarianism
> ...


We have transcendent goals but we are not sucked into the lies of egalitarianism.


People have finally awakened from the make-believe world of the Radical Enlightenment in the 18th Century. This sweeping social experiment - based on pseudoscience about equality, democracy, feminism, human fungibility, the mind as a blank slate, cosmopolitanism, borderlessness, mass immigration, miscegenation and trying to erase the biological distinctions between men and women - has come crashing down around us because it conflicts with man’s nature. “Social progress” can never happen because human nature doesn't change; and “social justice” remains forever beyond reach because society’s losers, misfits, kooks, weaklings, defectives, scolds, utopians and degenerates have conflicting grievances that they can’t reconcile, especially when it comes to dividing up the shrinking pile of spoils produced by generations of white people’s labor.
In other words, the Alt Right has rediscovered and articulated for our generation the essential tragedy of the human condition. It has become the voice of wisdom and maturity in a world full of delusions that we can no longer sustain. I find it encouraging that Donald Trump has stumbled upon this perspective, though I doubt he knows what to do with it. But thanks to his efforts, American politics in the 2020’s will look radically different from the nonsense that has damaged the United States for the past few generations


The following words demonstrate a lack of argument when uttered by an egalitarian:
Decency
Immoral
Bigot
Sociopath
Inhumane
Selfish
Anti-social
And so on. These words are what ostensible adults use when they want to sound more than just a child going “you’re mean!” — Which is exactly what they are.



Populism
What is wrong with this? More over if it starves the left of voters/power why not? They have zero questions have doing it to us.

Ethno-socialism
Some what agree, but its a step back towards sanity and away from the "world`s welfare office" model of the left/neo cons.

Anti-capitalism
Being against "free trade" and endless immigration does not make a person Anti Capitalism (not saying that you claim or think this).

Increasing GDP .5% at all costs is not worth it, turning America into Mexico just to save a few bucks is moronic if not treasonistic.



Totalitarianism
Compared to the left we nothing of the sort. All we want to do is remove those in power, those who are responsible for the decline of America/Western Civilization.

They did not/do not see what is happening so their are either grossly incompetent or they are behind it, either way they are leaving. You do not get to befoul a nation, rob the citzenry of their rights, wealth, culture, future (and in the case of immigration, their nation and control over it) and get to stay in it, let alone in power.

"Pyhsical removal" indeed. 


Modernism
How so?

In-group egalitarianism

For the in-group we practice in group principles, for outsides we give them nothing as we should. The era of "you have to treat me as your equal", "You have to do blank to our benefit and your debarment because of "insert reason, value, etc here"" is long over.

We are the backlash, we are decades in the making, the Neo Cons are a movement without a base, we are base, a movement, a great wave of restoration of Liberty, Reason, Sanity, Logic, Science, and indeed all the greatest things of Western culture, only we refuse to back down, "compromise", "Go along to get along", and have less then no fear of being called names by people who hate us and want to harm us just because we refuse to give them to power to inflict harm upon us because of their insecurity, jealousy, or sadistic nature.

The left has no idea what we are, they really think calling us names will have the same impact it did on the Neo Cons/Cuckservatives, it will have the opposite effect.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> You left out immigration fanboy. 
> 
> You never extend voting rights to group who will vote against you, this has been the norm for all of time, why? Because it is not in your best interests to do so.
> 
> I have no obligation to raise an army,  arm it, and unleash it against myself.


I don't think Rand ever abandoned his closed borders position, but you wouldn't have been able to tell from his rhetoric.

----------


## adissa

> I like some people within the alt-right, but there's a reason I identify with Neoreaction  instead.


Explain the distinction between the two, please.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Explain the distinction between the two, please.


Mises Institute seminar vs. Ron Paul sign wave.

----------


## undergroundrr

> However, I have the intelligence and the basic decency not to call something I haven't read a "Nazi tract" or anything similar.


Sorry, we have to draw our conclusions from the conclusions of others. Our time in life is limited. I may never read Mein Kampf or Das Kapital either, but I'm content to take the word of people I trust. There's no shortage of drooly, insubstantial, unconditional rave reviews of "IQ and..." out there by people who are feeding their confirmation bias, but most of the substantial commentary where somebody has really considered the depth of the hypothesis has been very critical. I put a fair bit of weight on writing found on mises.org.  But you know, it's a site named after a Jew, so YMMV.




> It's my experience that the critics of hereditarianism constantly strawman the proponents and often simply argue for a softer hereditarian model instead of something actually distinct. On the alt-right as a whole, there is a tendency to overestimate race and underestimate statecraft and economics. On the other hand, race and IQ predicts wealth and levels of violence in the US exceedingly well.


So you guys get off your asses and define a distinct hereditarian model. To do that, someone's going to have to establish 
a) if IQ measures something and if so what it measures,
b) for purpose of research - what a race is, defined by allowable variance of specific markers on the genome,
c) that the data is collected according to the definition in b),
d) that the data is strong, not dubiously derived, and from a very large sample,
e) the direction of causation.

I know, "But that would take too long and be too expensive, and before we can do that the world will be overrun by immigrants and civilization will have collapsed."

Notably, in positive accounts of "IQ and..." rigor is cast to the wind.  There are only varieties of "This book is right because it has lots of tables and if you don't think so you're a cuck."  And, "These guys have the balls to say what nobody else would say."  And most evocatively, "Don't listen to the detractors."

Determining IQ by average readings from a sample within a political boundary results in only a very tentative correlation to ethnicities in most cases.  On top of that, determining the IQ for an un-sampled country by averaging two bordering countries (which if claims are correct were done for almost half the numbers in their original "IQ and..." list) is a data distortion that can only be labeled malicious negligence.  No, let me go further.  It's idiotic, moronic and brazenly unscientific.

I formed my libertarian opinions in an environment where sociology as a discipline was highly questioned and generally dismissed as junk science.  I have my doubts that such modes of thought _can be_ objective, let alone libertarian.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Sorry, we have to draw our conclusions from the conclusions of others. Our time in life is limited. I may never read Mein Kampf or Das Kapital either, but I'm content to take the word of people I trust.


And yet you're going to rail so stridently against it, with such certainty, that it's the most evil thing ever invented by man?  Have you at least read the Communist Manifesto?  I mean, come on.  And yet you're an expert on communism and feel qualified to hold such strong opinions about it?

"I hate the Mormons; they're the most evil plague even unleashed by Satan!"

"Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?"

"Of course not -- I don't have to!" <--- YOU

----------


## undergroundrr

> And yet you're going to rail so stridently against it, with such certainty, that it's the most evil thing ever invented by man?  Have you at least read the Communist Manifesto?  I mean, come on.  And yet you're an expert on communism and feel qualified to hold such strong opinions about it?
> 
> "I hate the Mormons; they're the most evil plague even unleashed by Satan!"
> 
> "Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?"
> 
> "Of course not -- I don't have to!" <--- YOU


What a non sequitur.  LaVey's Satanic Bible, The Compleat Witch, or Dianetics would have made more sense for your example.  I haven't read any of those and I doubt you have either.

EDIT: To address your concern, no I'm not an expert on communism.  But I feel pretty solid on collectivism, which I believe is the true antithesis of individual liberty.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Could you define and explain collectivism to me?  And then explain why it is the antithesis of liberty?

What collectivist works have you read?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

What was Rand Paul supposed to do to win?  Only appeal to the GOP base and win the primary but lose the election?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> What was Rand Paul supposed to do to win?  Only appeal to the GOP base and win the primary but lose the election?


Not piss on his base, for starters.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Could you define and explain collectivism to me?  And then explain why it is the antithesis of liberty?
> 
> What collectivist works have you read?


I'll let you have the socratic initiative.

You're intelligent and can find textbook definitions all over the place.  What I'm talking about is when a group's rights supercede those of an individual, or conversely when an individual is judged to have less rights due to belonging to a group.

Ron Paul (echoing Ayn Rand a little) made one of the most perfect statements regarding the latter point - 

"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."

Pertinent to this thread, the alt.right has made the mistake of adopting the group mentality of the diversity nazis.

Collectivism isn't defined by a tract or a single author. Collectivism encompasses communism, fascism, racism, progressivism, alt.right and any number of other isms that consider the collective over the individual, new takes of which pop up in all parts of the world on a regular basis.  Focusing on orthodox communism in this day and age is tunnel vision at its finest.  

Anti-collectivist voices that I've studied include Skousen, President Benson, Mises, Rothbard, Spooner, Ron Paul, Harry Browne, Milton Friedman, Andrew Napolitano, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, Hoppe, Nozick and Hayek. (No, I haven't read Bastiat, Locke and many others yet). Strong messages about the individual vs. the collective are also found in Disney movies and even Star Trek episodes (try "I, Borg").  Not only conservatives and libertarians, but also liberals such as MLK, Orwell and Huxley have addressed the evil of collectivism, even if they didn't necessarily take the argument to its end.

By the way, Ayn Rand's quote from which Dr. Paul's is obviously derived is the following (emphasis mine) - 

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing _moral, social or political significance_ to a man's _genetic lineage_ — the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a _collective of ancestors_."

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Sorry, we have to draw our conclusions from the conclusions of others. Our time in life is limited. I may never read Mein Kampf or Das Kapital either, but I'm content to take the word of people I trust. There's no shortage of drooly, insubstantial, unconditional rave reviews of "IQ and..." out there by people who are feeding their confirmation bias, but most of the substantial commentary where somebody has really considered the depth of the hypothesis has been very critical. I put a fair bit of weight on writing found on mises.org.  But you know, it's a site named after a Jew, so YMMV.
> 
> 
> 
> So you guys get off your asses and define a distinct hereditarian model. To do that, someone's going to have to establish 
> a) if IQ measures something and if so what it measures,
> b) for purpose of research - what a race is, defined by allowable variance of specific markers on the genome,
> c) that the data is collected according to the definition in b),
> d) that the data is strong, not dubiously derived, and from a very large sample,
> ...


So dont learn for yourself, just trust the words of others...How Serfish of you.

More over you just hate IQ and genetics as it proves you wrong, we are not all the same, we are not equal, and some cultures/people are better at some things then others.

----------


## undergroundrr

> cultures/people are better at some things then others.


Individual people are. Collectives aren't.

Regarding books - Are things said in book form somehow more valid than things one reads outside of a hard cover?  I mean, I read plenty of books, but it doesn't mean I completely disregard anything that hasn't been through the editorial gauntlet of a New York publisher.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Collectivism isn't defined by a tract or a single author.


Is it defined by *any* tracts or authors?  That you've _read_?

Sorry, but your opinion is sounding very low-value from what you've written so far.  You have only read, seen, or experienced in any way, propaganda for one side of the argument.  How can you even be sure what the other side _is_ that the cartoon bugs and talking animals are supposedly arguing so devastatingly against?

*What collectivist works have you read?*

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Not piss on his base, for starters.


His base was liberty minded Conservatives and Libertarians, his base is just small.

----------


## undergroundrr

> *What collectivist works have you read?*


Why so angry? 

Not much in book form since my "conversion" in college. Tell me what I should put on my list.

You're obviously too overwhelmed to address the substance of my points (such as it is). Have I convinced you that your claim for the superiority of white, straight males over other groupings of eternal souls is fallacious? Or are my arguments automatically invalidated because I haven't read "History and Class Consciousness?"

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Why so angry?


Since I am not angry, I suppose I will never know.  I thought I was just asking a simple, relevant question.

Which will not be answered.

You are content to form opinions -- extremely strident, immutable opinions! -- based on little to nothing.  You are "content to take the word of people I trust".  Well, it seems sufficient for you.  Fine, fine.  I am much too curious and intellectual and enterprising to ever be satisfied with that.  I rather agree with this proverb: "What a shame, yes, how stupid, to decide before knowing the facts."

----------


## otherone

> You are content to form opinions -- extremely strident, immutable opinions! -- based on little to nothing.  _You are "content to take the word of people I trust"._  Well, it seems sufficient for you.  Fine, fine.  I am much too curious and intellectual and enterprising to ever be satisfied with that.  I rather agree with this proverb: "What a shame, yes, how stupid, to decide before knowing the facts."


The same can be said for trusting in those who have published work.  Speaking of talking animals, _Animal Farm_ is a nice easy read.  I'm not sure that anything written would ever convince me that the rights of any individual should ever be denied based on circumstance of birth.  In regards IQ, there will always be individuals who are dullards or savants...averages are meaningless.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Which will not be answered.


My answer was not much since college. It would be appropriate at this juncture for you to tell me all the anti-race consciousness literature you've studied (now don't just skim!) that gives you the authority to claim that straight, white males are a superior grouping.




> I am much too curious and intellectual and enterprising


My congratulations. Although you can't really take credit because it's apparently your straight, white male-dom and not any effort of your own that grants you these positive attributes. Still, I'd like to hear more of your substantive thought and fewer attempts to assign ignorance. Or you could just add "evasive" to that list of straight, white male qualities.

----------


## dannno

@Tywysog Cymru and anybody who thinks like the OP - 

PLEASE FFS watch the new South Park that was on last night - I mean, you should REALLY watch all of last season and get caught up, but last night's South Park is EXTREMELY relevant to this thread. 

**SPOILER ALERT**

Cartman is NOT Skankhunter42!!!!

----------


## dannno

//

----------


## undergroundrr

> //


I agree with what you said but my point was different.  I was addressing his assertion that I need to read Marx and Engels to make a valid argument against communism.

I was responding that if that's so, he'd need to read heretical works to validate the Book of Mormon.  

He blanked on it and barrelled on with the same line of argument.  Whatevs.

EDIT: Thanks for the tip about South Park.

----------


## dannno

> I agree with what you said but my point was different.  I was addressing his assertion that I need to read Marx and Engels to make a valid argument against communism.
> 
> I was responding that if that's so, he'd need to read heretical works to validate the Book of Mormon.  
> 
> He blanked on it and barrelled on with the same line of argument.  Whatevs.
> 
> EDIT: Thanks for the tip about South Park.


lol ya I got confused back-reading posts

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> He blanked on it and barrelled on with the same line of argument.  Whatevs.


 My point is not hard.  My points never are.  My point is this: To have a valid opinion on Topic X, one must know something about Topic X.

This is really, really easy to understand.

Someone, somewhere, reading this thread will understand.

Anyway, you are somewhere off in la-la land as far as who you _think_ I am and what you _think_ I support and want to defend. 




> EDIT: Thanks for the tip about South Park.


 Honestly.  Just sad.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Is it defined by *any* tracts or authors?  That you've _read_?
> 
> Sorry, but your opinion is sounding very low-value from what you've written so far.  You have only read, seen, or experienced in any way, propaganda for one side of the argument.  How can you even be sure what the other side _is_ that the cartoon bugs and talking animals are supposedly arguing so devastatingly against?
> 
> *What collectivist works have you read?*


Hey, there's this sect of immunology which contends that influenza virus is caused by contact with sunlight.

Individual sovereignty is _self-evident_.  Who but me owns my life?  If I don't own my life, who does?  It's elementary.

Just because there's a quack school of thought out there which holds that humans owe some or all of their life to some "group" does not mean that rational people must study it in order to reject it.  One can be familiar enough with an ideology by encountering it's broader implications to know that it's bunk.  I couldn't recite the 10 pillars of communism.  I've never read the Communist Manifesto.  But I'm familiar enough with the broad concepts of communism to reject it out of hand.  Christ, if you demand a thorough background in every two-bit ideology, we'd spend our lives studying stupidity, rather than in worthwhile pursuits.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Honestly.  Just sad.


Thank goodness I can rest assured you only offered that opinion after watching all 19 seasons of South Park.  Surely you didn't form it based on some other criteria.




> You are content to form opinions -- extremely strident, immutable opinions!


The relevant opinion you're challenging is this: That it's self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> So dont learn for yourself, just trust the words of others...How Serfish of you.
> 
> More over you just hate IQ and genetics as it proves you wrong, we are not all the same, we are not equal, and some cultures/people are better at some things then others.


That's at least twice you've rejected a sound, coherent argument with pablum.  

If nothing we can applaud your ability to persevere beyond the point of total failure.

----------


## undergroundrr

> if you demand a thorough background in every two-bit ideology, we'd spend our lives studying stupidity, rather than in worthwhile pursuits.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to A Son of Liberty again.

Who knows?  Maybe I'd read "The Communist Manifesto" or its intellectual cousin "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" and find out I've been wrong all this time.  It's sad that I may never know.  But if it helps, @helmuth_hubener, you've piqued my interest in anti-liberty literature.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to A Son of Liberty again.
> 
> Who knows?  Maybe I'd read "The Communist Manifesto" or its intellectual cousin "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" and find out I've been wrong all this time.  It's sad that I may never know.  But if it helps, @helmuth_hubener, you've piqued my interest in anti-liberty literature.


You're a better person than I.  I haven't the least interest in reading confused ramblings.  

Again, individual sovereignty is _self-evident_; it is an objective fact, and any philosophy springing from some other foundational principle is a house built upon the sands.  I suppose in order to dissect the argument from roof to foundation one must know it top to bottom, as it were.  But one can also simply recognize that the ground upon which the philosophy stands is unstable and by that knowledge alone condemn the whole damnable artifice.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Thank goodness I can rest assured you only offered that opinion after watching all 19 seasons of South Park.  Surely you didn't form it based on some other criteria.


  See, I'm giving you ammo!   It's called making you think.   No, I have never watched any episodes of that filth, and I never will.  Maybe dannno has some hot tips for you on the latest Playboy issues or the latest new marijuana strain.  Don't knock it 'til you try it!

What a hypocrite I am, eh?  Or am I?




> The relevant opinion you're challenging is this: That it's self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


 Oh am I?  Is that something that I am challenging now?  It is always so helpful to me when you will come out and tell me exactly what it is I believe and think rather than beating around the bush -- that way I can know if I agree with myself or not.

In this case, I disagree.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Individual people are. Collectives aren't.
> 
> Regarding books - Are things said in book form somehow more valid than things one reads outside of a hard cover?  I mean, I read plenty of books, but it doesn't mean I completely disregard anything that hasn't been through the editorial gauntlet of a New York publisher.


And what happens when you have large numbers of better individuals in a group? How does that negate their skills, abilities?

A if a fact is true the it is true regardless if it is in a book, heard by voice, read online, or learned first head. And call it names does nothing to change anything.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> His base was liberty minded Conservatives and Libertarians, his base is just small.


Once again he should not have pandered to the enemy, do you really think people in Detroit understand a 10th of he said, let alone vote for him (not just because they are leftists but nearly 50% illiterate)

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> That's at least twice you've rejected a sound, coherent argument with pablum.  
> 
> If nothing we can applaud your ability to persevere beyond the point of total failure.


Once again you have not made an argument.

----------


## TheCount

> the enemy


lol

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> lol


And that is why in close to 40 years you guys have done nothing and will achieve nothing.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Once again you have not made an argument.


YOU HAVEN'T MADE ONE YET!

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Since I am not angry, I suppose I will never know.  I thought I was just asking a simple, relevant question.
> 
> Which will not be answered.
> 
> You are content to form opinions -- extremely strident, immutable opinions! -- based on little to nothing.  You are "content to take the word of people I trust".  Well, it seems sufficient for you.  Fine, fine.  I am much too curious and intellectual and enterprising to ever be satisfied with that.  I rather agree with this proverb: "What a shame, yes, how stupid, to decide before knowing the facts."


helmuth, if I've never told you, man, I like your style.

----------


## undergroundrr

Bravo to you for avoiding works you're likely to find reprehensible. On the other hand, I suspect that even for we Mormons, there's probably considerably more virtuous content to be found in the works of Stone and Parker than in these volumes of Karl Marx you're imploring me to read.  FWIW, I've only watched a few episodes of South Park. It wasn't my brand of humor.




> Oh am I?  Is that something that I am challenging now?  It is always so helpful to me when you will come out and tell me exactly what it is I believe and think rather than beating around the bush -- that way I can know if I agree with myself or not.
> 
> In this case, I disagree.


Unclear. You disagree with yourself or Jefferson & Franklin?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> YOU HAVEN'T MADE ONE YET!


No, I have, its not my fault you cant understand it?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No, I have, its not my fault you cant understand it?


Its not that I can't understand it, it's just that it's been so thoroughly dismantled here that there's just nothing left of it. And your rebuttals have been non-existent.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Its not that I can't understand it, it's just that it's been so thoroughly dismantled here that there's just nothing left of it. And your rebuttals have been non-existent.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Unclear. You disagree with yourself or Jefferson & Franklin?


 Myself.




> Bravo to you for avoiding works you're likely to find reprehensible.


 Hypocrite!  Hypocrite!  What a hypocrite I am, eh?  No, it's very simple actually: I avoid works that are obscene, profane, vulgar, or pornographic.  I thus thankfully avoid polluting my mind in ways that are against the law of the Lord, and of all decency.  This "show" that you found to have "considerable virtuous content" and only failed to become a regular patron of because you had a slightly different brand of humoric opinion, it is all four, proudly, in spades.  Wo unto them that judge evil to be good.

So how am I not a hypocrite?  Since you are not likely to ponder on this and come up with the solution, I'll just tell: you don't hear me pontificating on the _content_ of the show, now do you?  You don't hear me arguing against its philosophy or any world-view it may be promoting.  On such things I would be totally ignorant, and were I to argue about them I would be an embarrassment.  I am simply staying away from it based on what it _is_, its nature.  To say South Park is obscene and filthy is like saying, "The Communist Manifesto is a textual document".  If you were a member of an anti-reading religion, you would be right to stay away from it on those grounds.  I am a member of an anti-filth, anti-obscenity religion.




> than in these volumes of Karl Marx you're imploring me to read.


 Oh, I am not imploring you to read them.  Where did I implore you to do that?  

You will be much more likely to understand me, underground, if you will simply read the words I write, rather than trying to read between the lines.  The words I write convey my thoughts much more precisely and effectively than the space between the lines that you keep spending inordinate amounts of time squinting at and then responding to what you imagine must be written there in invisible ink. Examples of things I have not written:

1. I am an ROL clone.
2. I agree with ROL.
3. I hate the Declaration of Independence.
4. I am in any way challenging the Lockean fundamentals mentioned in Declaration of Independence.
5. I am an expert on racist books.
6. I have even so much as read any racist books.
7. I am involved in the alt-right movement.
8. I have any need to defend any actions and ideas of the alt-right whatsoever.
9. You need to read Marx and Engels.
10. You need to read Marx and Engels to make a valid argument against communism.

All of these lies, found not in my words, but somewhere in that huge and mysterious void "between the lines."  It's a big place, that void.  You can find anything you want there.

Regarding reading about communism, I had merely noticed you felt particularly strongly about communism and mentioned it often, using very strong language.  I was simply telling you that you would have much more credibility on the subject if you had actually read some source material.  

Regarding reading about collectivism, I notice you are super-against it too, but I do not think you have ever bothered to step back and ask yourself whether you have a very well-formed idea of what this "collectivism" is, and then to form such an idea.  Perhaps you just mean statism, a collective-rights ideology, as Son of Liberty does.  But you seem to include, at times, racism, sexism, and even deviancism (opposition to deviance).  Currently, as best I can tell, collectivism is simply a label you apply to mean, roughly, "a bunch of things I don't like."

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> His base was liberty minded Conservatives and Libertarians, his base is just small.


And they even didn't show up for him because he sucked so bad.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Regarding reading about collectivism, I notice you are super-against it too, but I do not think you have ever bothered to step back and ask yourself whether you have a very well-formed idea of what this "collectivism" is, and then to form such an idea.  Perhaps you just mean statism, a collective-rights ideology, as Son of Liberty does.  But you seem to include, at times, racism, sexism, and even deviancism (opposition to deviance).  Currently, as best I can tell, collectivism is simply a label you apply to mean, roughly, "a bunch of things I don't like."





> You're intelligent and can find textbook definitions all over the place.  What I'm talking about is when a group's rights supercede those of an individual, or conversely when an individual is judged to have less rights due to belonging to a group.


I also listed a number of forms of collectivism.

But I mean, c'mon, you imply that you've read and studied in-depth the Communist Manifesto, but you're not giving a cursory skim to the information you solicited from me, sometimes in angry bold-face?  I recommend going back and reading that whole post.  

Pertinent to this thread, you're apparently very comfortable posting things like this:




> These (white, heterosexual, culturally-traditional males) are the very people most disposed to favor libertarian ideas.


The corollary is that non-whites, LGBTQ's and women are less disposed to favor libertarian ideas.

I'll be direct - I want to sell you on non-whites, LGBTQ's and women.  We'll start with this: They're all infinitely less likely to invent South Park and hit musicals demeaning LDS missionaries.  But we should love the sinner, not the sin right?

What is libertarianism to you?  For me, it's the opposite of collectivism.  It's the system of political organization that protects the rights of the individual from violation by the interests of any collective.  

Back up your claim.  What's your evidence of this SWM disposition?  Is it because SWM's wrote the Constitution and the Declaration?  Is it because they have yuuge cognitive equipment?  Is it because of whites' superior public school system?  Is it because they don't watch gay porn?  Is it because they don't have to deal with all that estrogen and those annoying monthly periods and menopause?  Is it because they can't jump?  You stepped into an alt.right thread to take the side of some gentlemen who were defending hereditarianism.  Pony up.  

It would also be good to address the obverse - the penchant some straight white guys have had for cooking up and subjecting themselves to particularly delectable forms of mass human misery.  These may or may not outnumber or outperform the ones with a penchant for libertarian thought.  You tell me.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> What I'm talking about is when a group's rights supercede those of an individual, or conversely when an individual is judged to have less rights due to belonging to a group.  I also listed a number of forms of collectivism.


 It just seems to be a very confused and muddled term if you're also including "anyone who thinks anything negative about a group (collective) of persons".  If you just want to define it as group-rights or -non-rights superceding individual rights, well then _right on!_  But, you do not seem to want to do that, you mainly want to Stamp Out Racism.  Coming up with a definition of collectivist that includes both "people who believe in government" (virtually everyone) and also "people who believe there are differences between the races" (also virtually everyone).... well, would be a challenge.




> Pertinent to this thread, you're apparently very comfortable posting things like this:


 Whoa, whoa, we already decided I'm a Good Guy and it's Just Great and Perfectly Kosher for me to say nice positive things about white men, traditional families, or other popular punching bags.  Remember?

I was so pleased you reached that conclusion!  Let's not revert backwards.  Keep the progress you've made and keep moving forward.  Don't look back.  You might turn to salt.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Back up your claim.  What's your evidence of this SWM disposition?


 *Planet Earth*




> What is libertarianism to you?  For me, it's the opposite of collectivism.


 Again, if you want to define collectivism as "everything opposed to libertarianism" then OK, right on!




> You stepped into an alt.right thread to take the side of some gentlemen who were defending hereditarianism.


 As for who I am "taking the side" of, I do not even remember what it is I may have posted that made you think this.  I may have forgotten, or you may have gotten me confused with someone else, or decided to collectively lump me in with everyone else on the thread.

*I take the side of truth.  That's all.*  Sometimes I may defend unpopular members of the forum, just for fun and my own enjoyment,... _if_ I can find anything remotely defensible that they have said.  And that thing I jump in on may not have anything to do with the original topic of the thread.  More often than not it doesn't.

P.S.: Bold does not mean angry.  I do not use it that way.  I use it to call attention and emphasize.  Now you know.

----------


## undergroundrr

> you mainly want to Stamp Out Racism.


Admittedly, its collectivist ickyness annoys me, especially when it's exhibited in people who are otherwise liberty minded. Being assertively anti-racist is getting to be a really rare thing to encounter on RPF. 




> Coming up with a definition of collectivist that includes both "people who believe in government" (virtually everyone) and also "people who believe there are differences between the races" (also virtually everyone).... well, would be a challenge.


Ron Paul didn't find it too difficult.  Really, people who believe in government are only a small part of it.  In the end, it's a battle against the hasty generalization.  The kind of thing that makes people say "I hate the Mormons; they're the most evil plague even unleashed by Satan!"

The hasty generalization is the ultimate enemy of religious liberty.




> Whoa, whoa, we already decided I'm a Good Guy and it's Just Great and Perfectly Kosher for me to say nice positive things about white men, traditional families, or other popular punching bags.  Remember?
> 
> I was so pleased you reached that conclusion!  Let's not revert backwards.  Keep the progress you've made and keep moving forward.  Don't look back.  You might turn to salt.


You are a good guy.  But that statement (for instance) was given as a component of a post in which loving gay people was discouraged, where they were branded as loud, obnoxious, intolerant, hateful. Ironically or not, you came to this thread to join the dogpile with some alt.righters.  I guess it's okay if they're loud, obnoxious, intolerant and hateful, cuz they're straight, white and patriarchal?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Admittedly, its collectivist ickyness annoys me, especially when it's exhibited in people who are otherwise liberty minded. Being assertively anti-racist is getting to be a really rare thing to encounter on RPF.


 And that's very understandable.  I understand.  I really do.  And that's an admirable thing for you to be.




> Ron Paul didn't find it too difficult.  Really, people who believe in government are only a small part of it.  In the end, it's a battle against the hasty generalization.  The kind of thing that makes people say "I hate the Mormons; they're the most evil plague even unleashed by Satan!"


 _My_ battle is not against the hasty generalization.  I just am really not bothered by that.  It just doesn't hurt my feelings.  And while I understand it does hurt those of others, and I want to be sensitive to that, we all have to pick our battles.  My battle is against the actual violation of rights.  If people want to call each other names, or think poorly of each other, I'm sorry, this will not make you happy, but: *More power to them!*




> You are a good guy.


 Well thanks! 


> But that statement (for instance) was given as a component of a post in which loving gay people was discouraged, where they were branded as loud, obnoxious, intolerant, hateful.


  Their so-called _movement_ certainly is.  That is just a *fact*.  That no one (except for FF/CL) would have a problem with them if they were quiet and unassuming I also mentioned. 


> Ironically or not, you came to this thread to join the dogpile with some alt.righters.  I guess it's okay if they're loud, obnoxious, intolerant and hateful, cuz they're straight, white and patriarchal?


 Are they? And are they? (respectively)  I don't know.  Isn't that an awfully big.... generalization?




> The hasty generalization is the ultimate enemy of religious liberty.


It's possible that it can be a motive.  It's possible that people may naturally move from "I hate all blacks" to "All blacks must die".  But the generalization itself is not the rights violation.  And to prevent the generalization is to violate the generalizer's rights -- his freedom of thought and speech.  So then we're back to violating a principle in order to preserve liberty overall -- the very thing that you say anti-immigration libertarians want to do.

You guys are all not so different after all.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Are they? And are they? (respectively)  I don't know.  Isn't that an awfully big.... generalization?


Hey, you're getting good at this!

----------


## undergroundrr

> And to prevent the generalization is to violate the generalizer's rights


By force it would be. But to discourage by discussion, ostracism, ridicule, etc., A-OK.  Die for your right and all that.  Although I have to admit I'd be a little more hesitant to die for somebody who routinely censures large swathes of people on the basis of irrelevant bullcrap than I would for somebody who was genuinely compassionate and accepting.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> And they even didn't show up for him because he sucked so bad.


Rand Paul wasn't perfect, but he is miles ahead of anyone in the Senate and miles ahead of any other Presidential candidate this year.

----------


## TheCount

> And that is why in close to 40 years you guys have done nothing and will achieve nothing.


Because I don't consider nonwhites to be my enemy?

----------


## dannno

> Because I don't consider nonwhites to be my enemy?


What did you think of the ending of the most recent South Park episode?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Public Service Announcement:

1. Racism is not unlibertarian. 

2. Aggression motivated by racism is unlibertarian. 

3. But aggression motivated by racism is no more unlibertarian than any other type of aggression.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Because I don't consider nonwhites to be my enemy?


Because you refuse to stop advocating and acting in the best interests of your enemies rather then yourselves.

Because you really think everyone shares your values and desires and refuse to accept some in fact most dont and if given the chance will vote to stop you.

----------


## TheCount

> Because you refuse to stop advocating and acting in the best interests of your enemies rather then yourselves.
> 
> Because you really think everyone shares your values and desires and refuse to accept some in fact most dont and if given the chance will vote to stop you.


I don't advocate or act in the best interests of my enemies.  I act in my own best interest.  You're presupposing that the list of people who are my enemy is the same as your list, and therefore that my behavior is irrational.

So tell me, person on the internet, who is my enemy?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Public Service Announcement:
> 
> 1. Racism is not unlibertarian.


Racism absent force is not an un-libertarian action.  Racism itself - assessing the merits or lack thereof of a group of people based upon some superficial artifact is DECIDEDLY un-libertarian.  Libertarianism is an individualistic ideology.  It is inherently contradictory to account an individual upon some conceived collective notion.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Racism itself - assessing the merits or lack thereof of a group of people based upon some superficial artifact is DECIDEDLY un-libertarian.  Libertarianism is an individualistic ideology.  It is inherently contradictory to account an individual upon some conceived collective notion.


Libertarianism is the non-aggression principle and the subsidiary principles required to define aggression - nothing more. 

It has nothing whatsoever to say about how anyone should behave, other than that people should not aggress.

Of course, individual libertarians may have something to say about this, but libertarians qua libertarians do not.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Libertarianism is the non-aggression principle and the subsidiary principles required to define aggression - nothing more. 
> 
> It has nothing whatsoever to say about how anyone should behave, other than that people should not aggress.
> 
> Of course, individual libertarians may have something to say about this, but libertarians qua libertarians do not.


We can chase our tails on this topic forever.  I agree that libertarianism is about non-aggression.  But that non-aggression is founded upon a mutual respect for every other human being for the fact that they are an individual human being.  

Once one begins to assess individuals based upon some collectivist notion or another, however, the battle is essentially lost.  

There's no real room within libertarianism for that.  One may get by on a technicality for a time, but before long he'll find himself abandoning the philosophy altogether, and wind up sounding like "RestorationofLiberty".

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> We can chase our tails on this topic forever.  I agree that libertarianism is about non-aggression.  But that non-aggression is founded upon a mutual respect for every other human being for the fact that they are an individual human being.  
> 
> Once one begins to assess individuals based upon some collectivist notion or another, however, the battle is essentially lost.  
> 
> There's no real room within libertarianism for that.  One may get by on a technicality for a time, but before long he'll find himself abandoning the philosophy altogether, and wind up sounding like "RestorationofLiberty".


It sounds like you agree that racism is not logically inconsistent with libertarianism?

But what you're saying is that, in practice, racism is an obstacle to the progress of the libertarian movement?

In the current political environment, where racism is aligned with Trumpism, which is just national socialism lite, I'd agree.

It could be in other political circumstances that racism would be no impediment to libertarianism, or could even be an ally.

Any libertarian opposition to racism can only be strategic; there's no reason for any sort of philosophical objection.

We aren't party to the culture war - except as we might choose to be for strategic reasons.

P.S. Okay, so libertarians might strategically support/oppose racism depending on the situation...How about the present situation? Racism being aligned with Trumpism, we don't want to promote racism, because it'll only grow Trumpism. But, at the same time, anti-racism (or so it calls itself...) is aligned with the SJWs, statists as abominable as the Trumpkins, whom we also don't want to help. So, we shouldn't take up either position: racism or anti-racism. Try to convince people on both sides that the whole issue of race is unimportant.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> We can chase our tails on this topic forever.  I agree that libertarianism is about non-aggression.  But that non-aggression is founded upon a mutual respect for every other human being for the fact that they are an individual human being.  
> 
> Once one begins to assess individuals based upon some collectivist notion or another, however, the battle is essentially lost.  
> 
> There's no real room within libertarianism for that.  One may get by on a technicality for a time, but before long he'll find himself abandoning the philosophy altogether, and wind up sounding like "RestorationofLiberty".


No it can, just not you "blank slate" view which values apart.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I don't advocate or act in the best interests of my enemies.  I act in my own best interest.  You're presupposing that the list of people who are my enemy is the same as your list, and therefore that my behavior is irrational.
> 
> So tell me, person on the internet, who is my enemy?


Yes you do. It is not your intent but the end result of your action.

----------


## TheCount

> Yes you do. It is not your intent but the end result of your action.


For a member of movement that prides itself on how direct and un-PC it is, you seem to be quite unwilling to answer me.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It sounds like you agree that racism is not logically inconsistent with libertarianism?


No, I said that I agree that libertarianism is about rejecting unprovoked aggression.  




> But what you're saying is that, in practice, racism is an obstacle to the progress of the libertarian movement?


Racism - ill regard for individuals based upon perceived characteristics of a race as a whole - is the polar opposite of individualism.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

@A Son of Liberty

Earlier, I defined libertarianism as the non-aggression principle and the subsidiary principles necessary to define aggression.

Thus defined, libertarianism has nothing to say about race.

...just like physics has nothing to say about literature, or chemistry has nothing to say about economics. 

They are simply not concerned with the same subject matter. 

If you disagree, and think libertarianism does have something to say about race, you must have a different definition of libertarianism. 

Would you tell me what it is?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> @A Son of Liberty
> 
> Earlier, I defined libertarianism as the non-aggression principle and the subsidiary principles necessary to define aggression.
> 
> Thus defined, libertarianism has nothing to say about race.
> 
> ...just like physics has nothing to say about literature, or chemistry has nothing to say about economics. 
> 
> They are simply not concerned with the same subject matter. 
> ...


I'm not sure how I can say it which would satisfy you... 

Libertarianism is the opposition to unprovoked aggression.  What underpins that opposition is the recognition that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among which... you know the tune... 

IF ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THEN RACE DOES NOT MATTER.  What clearly does matter is the individual.  A "racist libertarian" holds the contradictory notions that all men are created equal and that some men are less equal or valued for the generic reason of the color of their skin.  Again, these are contradictory notions.  

So, libertarianism qua libertarianism, to my knowledge, doesn't say much about race, but it's fairly obvious that the consequences of accepting a libertarian viewpoint necessitates rejecting racism.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Libertarianism is the opposition to unprovoked aggression.


Right




> What underpins that opposition is the recognition that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among which... you know the tune... 
> 
> IF ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THEN RACE DOES NOT MATTER.  What clearly does matter is the individual.  A "racist libertarian" holds the contradictory notions that all men are created equal and that some men are less equal or valued for the generic reason of the color of their skin.  Again, these are contradictory notions.


Equality under the law (i.e. no one should _aggress_ against another person, regardless of race) is one thing. 

Equality in the sense you mean (i.e. no one should _value_ another person less because of race) is another thing.

The former is a libertarian principle, the latter is not.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Right
> 
> 
> 
> Equality under the law (i.e. no one should _aggress_ against another person, regardless of race) is one thing. 
> 
> Equality in the sense you mean (i.e. no one should _value_ another person less because of race) is another thing.
> 
> The former is a libertarian principle, the latter is not.


Can a person be a libertarian - object to unprovoked aggression - while being a racist?  Yeah.  _Should_ one?  No, not really.  Not if he accepts that we are to take individuals at their merits, and not according to some broad, general characteristic.  The consequences are obvious.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Can a person be a libertarian - object to unprovoked aggression - while being a racist?  Yeah.


QED




> should one?  No, not really.  Not if he accepts that we are to take individuals at their merits, and not according to some broad, general characteristic.  The consequences are obvious.


It may be that one should not be a racist.

I'm just saying that such a judgment does not follow from_ libertarian_ principles. 

It may follow from _other_ principles.

Likewise, it may be that one should not lie, cheat at checkers, or watch too much porn.

...but any condemnation of those behaviors must come from someplace other than libertarianism.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Just to clarify, in case anyone following this is getting confused...

*The alt-right is pure garbage and should be vigorously opposed by all libertarians*.

What I'm saying is that the reason for libertarians to oppose them is their statism, not their racism. 

If you personally dislike their racism, well fine, then you have two reasons for opposing them, but the libertarian reason is their statism.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> For a member of movement that prides itself on how direct and un-PC it is, you seem to be quite unwilling to answer me.


I have, its not my fault you are not able to understand it.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Just to clarify, in case anyone following this is getting confused...
> 
> *The alt-right is pure garbage and should be vigorously opposed by all libertarians*.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the reason for libertarians to oppose them is their statism, not their racism. 
> 
> If you personally dislike their racism, well fine, then you have two reasons for opposing them, but the libertarian reason is their statism.


Enjoy not winning elections.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Enjoy not winning elections.


How many elections has the alt-right won?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> How many elections has the alt-right won?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German...ion,_July_1932

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> How many elections has the alt-right won?


We unseated Eric Cantor, we won the GOP primary, we are destroying the Establishment.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> We unseated Eric Cantor, we won the GOP primary, we are destroying the Establishment.


Eric Cantor lost before anyone had heard of the alt-right.

----------


## pcosmar

How does the difference between intellect, or strength, or any other perceived attributes affect the value of an individual.

or are individuals equal (in inherent value)  regardless of an profit margin?


or are some worth more due to some hereditary factor? and then ,,,Who?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Eric Cantor lost before anyone had heard of the alt-right.



The Alt Right has been around longer then you think.

----------


## CPUd

> The Alt Right has been around longer then you think.


Didn't they previously call themselves Christian Identity?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> How does the difference between intellect, or strength, or any other perceived attributes affect the value of an individual.
> 
> or are individuals equal (in inherent value)  regardless of an profit margin?
> 
> 
> or are some worth more due to some hereditary factor? and then ,,,Who?


To say all individuals are all equally valuable is a total lie. 

Smarter, Stronger, more beautiful people are have higher value as they more/have greater means/potential then those who are not. To deny this is to live in willful ignorance.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Didn't they previously call themselves Christian Identity?


A faction with promise, but no. We have always been in existence, Cuckly thought just by "reading us out", denying a platform, and acting as a gatekeeper he could get rid of us. He was wrong is oh so many ways...With the Internet we have been able to be everywhere, no gatekeepers, only the "moralists" who think they can tell others how or what to think.


They can no longer tell people "you can not think or believe this because if you do you are a "fill in the blank", the cost of self immolation is to high for most people to pay so they are not, if being called names is the cost of being free, safe, and prosperous, so be it.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> We unseated Eric Cantor, we won the GOP primary, we are destroying the Establishment.


That's cute.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> To say all individuals are all equally valuable is a total lie. 
> 
> Smarter, Stronger, more beautiful people are have higher value as they more/have greater means/potential then those who are not. To deny this is to live in willful ignorance.


"Smart", stronger, beautiful are generally speaking subjective attributes, and while you are perfectly free to value others based on those standards, most people (particularly in your case) will likely not agree with you.  

So when we consider the value of other human beings, people who cherish the freedom of individuals look to the objective standard of inherent value; thus, the language of the Declaration of Independence: _We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_.

To deny THIS is to live in willful ignorance, and obviously explicitly inaugurates violence into society, and is deductively self-destructive.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

How does ROL have 5 green bars? The mods probably wiped his neg reps like they did Farreri's.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> The Alt Right has been around longer then you think.


I'm sure they existed before 2015.

Just like there were LGBT activists in the 1970s.  Their numbers were so small they were politically irrelevant though.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

People are unequal in intelligence, physical strength, beauty, etc, etc - this is obvious.

When the alt-right attacks their critics for denying this, they are largely attacking a straw man.

We aren't denying human inequality. We're denying that human inequality necessitates any special action on the part of the state.

Group A has a higher than average crime rate? So prosecute the individual criminals in the usual way, problem solved. 

Group  A has a lower than average IQ, and is less likely to succeed in a  market economy? Well then they'll be poorer - that's their problem.

The alt-right _and the SJWS_ are mistaken in thinking that inequality is a problem requiring a state solution.

----------


## CCTelander

> People are unequal in intelligence, physical strength, beauty, etc, etc - this is obvious.
> 
> When the alt-right attacks their critics for denying this, they are largely attacking a straw man.
> 
> We aren't denying human inequality. We're denying that human inequality necessitates any special action on the part of the state.
> 
> Group A has a higher than average crime rate? So prosecute the individual criminals in the usual way, problem solved. 
> 
> Group  A has a lower than average IQ, and is less likely to succeed in a  market economy? Well then they'll be poorer - that's their problem.
> ...



But ... but ... muh jerbs! Muh culturez!

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> But ... but ... muh jerbs! Muh culturez!


Alt-Right: "Deport my competitors in the labor market!"
SJWs: "Force employers to hire me!"

Alt-right: "Deport people from other cultures!"
SJWs: "Force people to accept my culture!"

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> "Smart", stronger, beautiful are generally speaking subjective attributes, and while you are perfectly free to value others based on those standards, most people (particularly in your case) will likely not agree with you.  
> 
> So when we consider the value of other human beings, people who cherish the freedom of individuals look to the objective standard of inherent value; thus, the language of the Declaration of Independence: _We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_.
> 
> To deny THIS is to live in willful ignorance, and obviously explicitly inaugurates violence into society, and is deductively self-destructive.


Of course just deconstruct everything.

All men are created equal, before God, Subject to natural law, and before the laws of the nation, nothing more.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> People are unequal in intelligence, physical strength, beauty, etc, etc - this is obvious.
> 
> When the alt-right attacks their critics for denying this, they are largely attacking a straw man.
> 
> We aren't denying human inequality. We're denying that human inequality necessitates any special action on the part of the state.
> 
> Group A has a higher than average crime rate? So prosecute the individual criminals in the usual way, problem solved. 
> 
> Group  A has a lower than average IQ, and is less likely to succeed in a  market economy? Well then they'll be poorer - that's their problem.
> ...



Do you agree or disagree that the state should do anything to "make people equal" in anyway? Because that is what the left has tried to do using the state and failed in everyway.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Do you agree or disagree that the state should do anything to "make people equal" in anyway?


The state should not do anything to make people equal. 

It's sole function should be to secure property rights.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> The state should not do anything to make people equal. 
> 
> It's sole function should be to secure property rights.


Tell that to the left, they really do think you can make people equal, and 22 Trillion dollars and 50 years later knew now what we knew then, it does not work.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Tell that to the left


I've tried telling you all. 

...how your plans for racial purity in the US require violating all kinds of people's property rights.

But you can't seem to grasp this.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I've tried telling you all.
> 
> ...how your plans for racial purity in the US require violating all kinds of people's property rights.
> 
> But you can't seem to grasp this.


You fail to understand that some groups do not value property rights and will work against them, so we can limit their rights as they will destroy ours. More over no one has the right to immigrant.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You fail to understand that some groups do not value property rights and will work against them, so we can limit their rights as they will destroy ours. More over no one has the right to immigrant.


You fail to understand that the state doesn't discriminate when it comes to restricting rights.

----------


## CCTelander

> You fail to understand that the state doesn't discriminate when it comes to restricting rights.



Exactly. The power to restrict the rights of some IS the power to restrict the rights of all, and it WILL, eventually be used against everyone.

----------


## pcosmar

> To say all individuals are all equally valuable is a total lie. 
> 
> Smarter, Stronger, more beautiful people are have higher value as they more/have greater means/potential then those who are not. To deny this is to live in willful ignorance.


Wrong. There are many Ugly, weak, and debilitated people  with "wealth".

Look at the current Presidential picks.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Wrong. There are many Ugly, weak, and debilitated people  with "wealth".
> 
> Look at the current Presidential picks.


Then they are not ugly or weak....

----------


## otherone

> You fail to understand that some groups do not value property rights and will work against them, so we can limit their rights as they will destroy ours. More over no one has the right to immigrant.


Look in the mirror.  You're the first to deny me my property rights.  It's not your damn business who I invite on my property.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Look in the mirror.  You're the first to deny me my property rights.  It's not your damn business who I invite on my property.


Really its not any limits on who you must buy or sell to? Not what kind of payments you have to take, how much you must pay in taxes to keep what you "own"? Really I am the first?

----------


## pcosmar

> Really I am the first?


Nope. Just another in a long progression of petty tyrants.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Nope. Just another in a long progression of petty tyrants.


Yeah but millions of welfare voters/immigrants are not a bigger threat, right? LOL you people are hopeless.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yeah but millions of welfare voters/immigrants are not a bigger threat, right? LOL you people are hopeless.


They were already here before I was born..

The Welfare State was firmly in place before 1957.  and American Voters Keep voting for more of it..

Immigrants are not going to make a difference.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> They were already here before I was born..
> 
> The Welfare State was firmly in place before 1957.  and American Voters Keep voting for more of it..
> 
> Immigrants are not going to make a difference.


So adding more welfare cases/future welfare voters is not going to make things worse and harder if not impossible to end the welfare state?

----------


## RandallFan

I assume a lot of alt right are Jewish & asian teenagers bemused at the worship of unfunny comedians & unoriginal political ideas.

Do white shock jocks have a more diverse audience than white conservative political radio hosts?

Does WWE have a more diverse audience than white conservative political radio hosts who will bring freedom zones to black/hispanic minorities?

Do more ordinary blacks think Donald Trump or Erick Erickson is more relatable?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I assume a lot of alt right are Jewish & asian teenagers bemused at the worship of unfunny comedians & unoriginal political ideas.
> 
> Do white shock jocks have a more diverse audience than white conservative political radio hosts?
> 
> Does WWE have a more diverse audience than white conservative political radio hosts who will bring freedom zones to black/hispanic minorities?
> 
> Do more ordinary blacks think Donald Trump or Erick Erickson is more relatable?


Trump, they think Erickson is a weakling, a fool, and a cuck.

More over they do not care about freedom zones, if they did they would vote for them

----------


## sylcfh

The Alt-Right is a ultimately a single issue movement with zero interest in economics.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> You fail to understand that the state doesn't discriminate when it comes to restricting rights.





> Exactly. The power to restrict the rights of some IS the power to restrict the rights of all, and it WILL, eventually be used against everyone.


Anarcho Tyranny proves you wrong.




> The Alt-Right is a ultimately a single issue movement with zero interest in economics.




If you knew anything of us, you would know we do care about economics. That being said because we are not willing to turn America into a 3rd world hellscape to raise GDP 0.1% does not mean make us single issue voters.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> They were already here before I was born..
> 
> The Welfare State was firmly in place before 1957.  and American Voters Keep voting for more of it..
> 
> Immigrants are not going to make a difference.




So adding a million plus people who largely use welfare is not going to make a difference? Are you really going to pick this hill to die on?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Your candidate is the candidate who says that your movement does not exist?  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...right-movement



Theatricality and deception are power agents.

----------


## pcosmar

> So adding a million plus people who largely use welfare is not going to make a difference? Are you really going to pick this hill to die on?


Die on?  NO.

refute FUD,,, sure.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

This is what the supposed alpha males in the alt-right are up to, making parodies of Disney songs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5lpLHaVXnM

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Die on?  NO.
> 
> refute FUD,,, sure.



How can you refute the fact that adding more welfare cases adds more burden to the tax payers, debt, etc?

----------


## pcosmar

> How can you refute the fact that adding more welfare cases adds more burden to the tax payers, debt, etc?


Good.
When they are tired of the burden,, they can stop paying tax.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Good.
> When they are tired of the burden,, they can stop paying tax.




So no real options, nothing workable, all pie in the sky nonsense...

And that is why you will never win and we will..You do not live in the real world.

----------


## pcosmar

> You do not live in the real world.


actually I do.

and not paying is an option. or paying as little as possible.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> actually I do.
> 
> and not paying is an option. or paying as little as possible.


And
And you are out voted, more rights/wealth stolen when you could have kept them out and avoided some  much preventable nonsense.

----------


## pcosmar

> And
> And you are out voted, more rights/wealth stolen when you could have kept them out and avoided some  much preventable nonsense.


and?

How is today any different than yesterday?
Searching for lost rights led me here, I see little hope for restoration in this life.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> and?
> 
> How is today any different than yesterday?
> Searching for lost rights led me here, I see little hope for restoration in this life.



Its different as today it is done by imported voters, because the left knew it could not win the debate on facts and decided to stack the deck...

Well maybe it would go better/faster if we did not allow in people who vote to make that restoration impossible?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Here is what the seven alt-right accounts were doing on election day.

@FashyGoyMemes

[insert pepe meme]

@DethtooCUCKS

my mom wont let me stay up 4 teh hole elcton she sas its past my bedtiem!

@EdgyGoyim

the goys win!!!  this election is proof that the majority agrees with us!!!

@WhiteGirlsRMagic

Aryan beauty has been preserved! [insert picture of attractive blonde woman]

@ AlphaMale88 was unable to live tweet the election.  His mom walked in on him watching cuckoldry porn and now he is not allowed to use the computer for the next month.

@ProudNorseman

Evangelicucks lost, Thor won! [insert picture of him dressed as Thor]

@AryanGirl

America has been red-pilled!

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Here is what the seven alt-right accounts were doing on election day.
> 
> @FashyGoyMemes
> 
> [insert pepe meme]
> 
> @DethtooCUCKS
> 
> my mom wont let me stay up 4 teh hole elcton she sas its past my bedtiem!
> ...





Get over it, we won.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Get over it, we won.


Trump won because he was able to win votes of people who would be horrified by the alt-right.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Trump won because he was able to win votes of people who would be horrified by the alt-right.


Really?
You know their views or the core views of the Alt Right? You are speaking for other people? Who is the collectivist?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Really?
> You know their views or the core views of the Alt Right? You are speaking for other people? Who is the collectivist?


Racists are a small minority.

http://ijr.com/2014/04/133024-10-cha...merica-really/

----------


## AuH20



----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Immigrants are not going to make a difference.


100 million people do make a difference.

In a nation of 300 million, they do make a difference.

No one ever asked the American people if they wanted 1,000,000 new additional legal immigrants each and every year coming in to permanently live here (and that's just the legal ones).  No one asked them.  Most of them would say NO!

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Racists are a small minority.
> 
> http://ijr.com/2014/04/133024-10-cha...merica-really/




Yeah, source is crap, methods are crap, no one cares since everything is "racist".

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> 100 million people do make a difference.
> 
> In a nation of 300 million, they do make a difference.
> 
> No one ever asked the American people if they wanted 1,000,000 new additional legal immigrants each and every year coming in to permanently live here (and that's just the legal ones).  No one asked them.  Most of them would say NO!



Neve
Never mind the millions of non citizens that voted in this years election that if not for the massive support for Trump would have costed him the election.

America was never asked if we wanted mass 3rd world immigration, we never agreed, it has no value that is worth the burden so the answer is no.

Walls are going up
Those here illegally are going home
Legal immigration reduced, do not like any of this you open border fetishes? Do not give 1/16th of a $#@! anymore.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Yeah, source is crap, methods are crap, no one cares since everything is "racist".


Maybe the polling is off, but it would have to be off by a lot.

----------


## BV2

> We are way more relevant than the alt-right.  We actually have elected officials.


Thats only present. The future looks bleak and they have elected a President, who btw hilariously, thinks they are garbage. Us, too, though...not so funny.

----------


## BV2

> Trump won because he was able to win votes of people who would be horrified by the alt-right.


Good point. So the altright is in a state of orgiastic self assurance at Trumps victory even though, if any news is to be believed, he feels no real debt to the alt right. He wont alienate the entire coalition at once. This would be unwise. But one group at a time. He will rule like Hillary Clinton. The President Has No Pants Suit.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Something I found on twitter:

----------


## otherone

> I'm afraid English is his primary language.....
> 
> Shame on us.


Not my village, bro.  Shame on his parents.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Your reasons for thinking this?


Successful movements do or have the following things:

1. Clear hierarchy
2. Effective leadership
3. Tangible goals
4. Good strategy
5. A willingness to make alliances to accomplish said goals
6. Unity

Libertarians don't have any of those things, they fail on account of it. The alt-right actually ticked a lot of those boxes on twitter. Their leaders were people like Ricky Vaughn, their goal was to elect Trump and their strategy was memetics. It worked well, and their influence was felt outside their rather low numbers

However, since moving to the real world, they've revealed they lack all of those things outside of the online realm. All eyes were on Richard Spencer and the NPI, and what did they do? They do a speech where he says "hail Trump" and in response, a bunch of people do the Nazi salute which he later calls "ironic". Now, I understand that the media was never going to treat Spencer fairly, but he basically gave them all they needed to discredit him wrapped in a little bow. At least make them work for it, for God's sake. Groups like the NPI have said that they want to emerge from the shadows and function like a real lobby. If that's the case, Spencer needs to get about 1000% better immediately, or they need to replace him with an actually competent representative.

Moreover, with Trump's election, the infighting in the alt-right is starting to put libertarians to shame. 

-Vox Day splits the movement into the "alt-right", "alt-lite" and "alt-west". People come out and accuse him of being an entryist who's watering down the movement.
-Milo Yiannopolous gives the alt-right an _exceedingly_ fair (if a little rose-tinted and moderate) hearing on Breitbart, and has never actually called himself alt-right. The thanks he gets are accusations of being a degenerate, miscegenating "false flagger" who's bad for the movement. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
-The actual neo-Nazis in the movement claim that the alt-right _is_ a Nazi movement and anyone who claims otherwise is a Johnny-come-lately posers. 

Infighting like this destroys a movement and so does the desire to insulate oneself from allies in order to be "edgy". 





> More over Libertarians have never succeed to begin with, so how can they have failed?


The lack of libertarian success _is_ the failure.




> Also the Libertarians deny the impact of cultural, values, genes, IQ and immigration, the Alt right does not deny the, in fact we understand, accept, and have them as hallmarks of policy.


I largely agree with the alt-right on IQ, immigration and race (though many over-emphasize the importance).

----------


## kocbftn

I completely understand and sympathize with the alt right when it comes to immigration policy and I think their message is very important in these times. But, what I don't understand is the need for controlling immigration in a libertarian society. I think that when there are no public schools, no subsidized health care, no welfare state, no anti-discrimination laws, e.t.c. there is no need for controlling immigration, because if you look at it from a libertarian perspective, a restriction on immigration is a restriction on people's liberties to live where they want as long as they aren't violating other people's property rights.

----------


## sylcfh

The alt-right is negative image of the Tumblrina. Most of them are kids who can't even vote. 

Trump won because Hillary sucks. 99.9% of them have no idea what the alt-right even is.

The best thing about the alt right is they're not afraid to $#@! on Israel in the mainstream.

----------


## sylcfh

> Also the Libertarians deny the impact of cultural, values, genes, IQ and immigration, the Alt right does not deny the, in fact we understand, accept, and have them as hallmarks of policy.




Because none of those things have to do with the state, or the role of government(except immigration).

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Successful movements do or have the following things:
> 
> 1. Clear hierarchy
> 2. Effective leadership
> 3. Tangible goals
> 4. Good strategy
> 5. A willingness to make alliances to accomplish said goals
> 6. Unity
> 
> Libertarians don't have any of those things, they fail on account of it. The alt-right actually ticked a lot of those boxes on twitter. Their leaders were people like Ricky Vaughn, their goal was to elect Trump and their strategy was memetics. It worked well, and their influence was felt outside their rather low numbers


We are hitting well above our weight class...




> However, since moving to the real world, they've revealed they lack all of those things outside of the online realm. All eyes were on Richard Spencer and the NPI, and what did they do? They do a speech where he says "hail Trump" and in response, a bunch of people do the Nazi salute which he later calls "ironic". Now, I understand that the media was never going to treat Spencer fairly, but he basically gave them all they needed to discredit him wrapped in a little bow. At least make them work for it, for God's sake. Groups like the NPI have said that they want to emerge from the shadows and function like a real lobby. If that's the case, Spencer needs to get about 1000% better immediately, or they need to replace him with an actually competent representative.



The media was never/is never going to treat anyone fairly.

Keep in mind the media has less and less credibility day by day. Spencer? He could have said anything and they would paint him as a Nazi.  

Spencer learned a lesson, do not go too big to fast, scale up in stages.





> Moreover, with Trump's election, the infighting in the alt-right is starting to put libertarians to shame. 
> 
> -Vox Day splits the movement into the "alt-right", "alt-lite" and "alt-west". People come out and accuse him of being an entryist who's watering down the movement.
> -Milo Yiannopolous gives the alt-right an _exceedingly_ fair (if a little rose-tinted and moderate) hearing on Breitbart, and has never actually called himself alt-right. The thanks he gets are accusations of being a degenerate, miscegenating "false flagger" who's bad for the movement. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
> -The actual neo-Nazis in the movement claim that the alt-right _is_ a Nazi movement and anyone who claims otherwise is a Johnny-come-lately posers. 
> 
> Infighting like this destroys a movement and so does the desire to insulate oneself from allies in order to be "edgy".



Everyone movement has this, we are trying to fight against half the GOP and the entire DNC, so it goes without saying many people have other ideas, tactics, methods on how to do this, achieve our goals, etc.




> The lack of libertarian success _is_ the failure.


I thought it was the fact they are reality detached loons who think allowing in people who vote against them, dis/replace them is some how not a threat because they view all of humanity from a single view point?






> I largely agree with the alt-right on IQ, immigration and race (though many over-emphasize the importance).


Good to know..





> I completely understand and sympathize with the alt right when it comes to immigration policy and I think their message is very important in these times. But, what I don't understand is the need for controlling immigration in a libertarian society. I think that when there are no public schools, no subsidized health care, no welfare state, no anti-discrimination laws, e.t.c. there is no need for controlling immigration, because if you look at it from a libertarian perspective, a restriction on immigration is a restriction on people's liberties to live where they want as long as they aren't violating other people's property rights.



Because if you do not control it it will be used to import voters by and for your political enemies as a means to import voters, to capitalize politically on the chaos they produce.

American had No such things in the beginning, we allowed in hordes of people who supported such ideas and voted them into law.

Well mass immigration effects wages, cost of living, crime, terrorism, voting/elections, etc in the REAL WORLD (where we live). 





> The alt-right is negative image of the Tumblrina. Most of them are kids who can't even vote. 
> 
> Trump won because Hillary sucks. 99.9% of them have no idea what the alt-right even is.
> 
> The best thing about the alt right is they're not afraid to $#@! on Israel in the mainstream.



True, we go for blood, lies, hypocrisy, double standards, etc.   

[QUOTEsylcfh;6376243]Because none of those things have to do with the state, or the role of government(except immigration).[/QUOTE]

Wrong, it does. What happens when you import low IQ Somalian into a nation with a mean IQ of 100?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Because none of those things have to do with the state, or the role of government(except immigration).



More over you failed to understand that IQ largely shapes the mental/intellectual capability of a nation/people. If group A has an IQ of 100
+ do you think their ideals, values, systems be understandable to groups B, C, D who have IQs 85, 70, and 59? No.

----------


## Danke

Do you have proof Somalis have low IQs?  They seem pretty smart learning and networking to maximize aid from our welfare system.

----------


## oyarde

> Do you have proof Somalis have low IQs?  They seem pretty smart learning and networking to maximize aid from our welfare system.


Somali Pirates have higher IQ's than welfare mericans.

----------


## Danke

> Somali Pirates have higher IQ's than welfare mericans.


"Mericas" like native ones?

----------


## oyarde

> "Mericas" like native ones?


No , like Mericans on the couch in Chicago etc . Non native .

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Do you have proof Somalis have low IQs?  They seem pretty smart learning and networking to maximize aid from our welfare system.


https://iq-research.info/en/page/ave...try/so-somalia

Thank you for proving my point, why import people who will need welfare their entire lives? More over how is being a parasite a sign of intelligence?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Somali Pirates have higher IQ's than welfare mericans.



No they do not. American blacks of a higher IQ then Somalians.

----------


## oyarde

> No they do not. American blacks of a higher IQ then Somalians.


If that is what you think , all I can tell ya is stay clear of the African Coast by several hours .

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> If that is what you think , all I can tell ya is stay clear of the African Coast by several hours .



Somalian IQ 68 American Blacks? 85 So around one Deviation.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Yeah because letting in people who will vote against you is the hallmark of those with a brain.


Trying to control the way people think and act, limiting who they can and cannot vote for, is the mark of fascism, not limited government.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Trying to control the way people think and act, limiting who they can and cannot vote for, is the mark of fascism, not limited government.


Wrong.
It is the mark of limited Government. Remember the system of the Founders setup for voting?

But hey scream "racist" or "fascist", its not a leftist tactic at all right? But its not like you can make the case about letting in people who will vote against you, right?

----------


## Natural Citizen

What's the most popular alt-right forum? Anyone know?

----------


## TheCount

> What's the most popular alt-right forum? Anyone know?


Stormfront

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> What's the most popular alt-right forum? Anyone know?


 Surely The_Donald, by a couple orders of magnitude.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

It's just a meme!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5uVnwA5zuM

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> We are hitting well above our weight class...


Not for much longer, if you''re not careful.







> The media was never/is never going to treat anyone fairly.


I agree.




> Keep in mind the media has less and less credibility day by day. Spencer? He could have said anything and they would paint him as a Nazi.


That's true, but that's all the more reason why you shouldn't make it so damn easy for them. Become undeniable. If you're being watched by your enemies _don't_ give them exactly what they want. It ain't rocket science. Nazism is memetic cancer. 

Some people (Cernovich) are saying Spencer is an agent sent to destroy the alt-right. I don't buy this, but if he were, I can't think of one single thing he should have done differently, other than throwing the salute back.

>"We want to be a mainstream lobbying organization."
>"The media aren't people, but soulless golems."
>"Hail Trump!"
>*Audience Heils Trump*
>"It's the Roman Salute!"
>"It's ironic!"
>"It was Jews!"

Good, God, man. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot before the race even starts. It doesn't take the legacy media to put thoughts of brown shirts in people's heads, with guys like this. That's to say nothing about having degenerate MySpace sluts like Tila Tequila at a group meeting that is supposedly a serious political lobby with a bright future.




> Spencer learned a lesson, do not go too big to fast, scale up in stages.


Has he, though? He had a chance to bring the alt-right into the mainstream and failed hard. You don't get a do-over at an opportunity like that. Mike Cernovich and the like are thinking long term, whereas Spencer has high-time-preference and an apparent ravenous desire for fame and notoriety.







> Everyone movement has this, we are trying to fight against half the GOP and the entire DNC, so it goes without saying many people have other ideas, tactics, methods on how to do this, achieve our goals, etc.


The alt-right needs to decide what kind of movement it's going to be. Do you want to be a memetically savvy right-populist movement that actually gets things accomplished, or do you want to be a movement of edgelords and $#@!posters on Reddit and Twitter? As I've said, the alt-right understands memetics, particularly online. That's a huge boon. No right wing movement before this has come close to this kind of memetic understanding. But the nature of the internet is to adapt quickly and have a very short memory. The alt-right is currently a novelty in the mainstream, and they're attracting a sort of shock-jock, "Did he say that? What'll he say next?" kind of audience. If you want Twitter followers or YouTube views, that's great. If you want to be successful in demotist society, it's not enough. 





> I thought it was the fact they are reality detached loons who think allowing in people who vote against them, dis/replace them is some how not a threat because they view all of humanity from a single view point?


No, that's not why libertarians failed. Being detached from reality never hurt any political movement. There are _still_ Marxist/Leninists to this day. These people haven't even gotten around to post-Marxism FFS.

Libertarians failed because of a lack of leadership, a lack of realistic goals and infighting. "We don't need leaders, maaaaan! Leaders are for statists!" Lack of thede-awareness hurt libertarians, but the problems are far larger than that.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Good, God, man. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot before the race even starts. It doesn't take the legacy media to put thoughts of brown shirts in people's heads, with guys like this. That's to say nothing about having degenerate MySpace sluts like Tila Tequila at a group meeting that is supposedly a serious political lobby with a bright future.
> 
> 
> Has he, though? He had a chance to bring the alt-right into the mainstream and failed hard. You don't get a do-over at an opportunity like that. Mike Cernovich and the like are thinking long term, whereas Spencer has high-time-preference and an apparent ravenous desire for fame and notoriety.
> 
> 
> The alt-right needs to decide what kind of movement it's going to be. Do you want to be a memetically savvy right-populist movement that actually gets things accomplished, or do you want to be a movement of edgelords and $#@!posters on Reddit and Twitter? As I've said, the alt-right understands memetics, particularly online. That's a huge boon. No right wing movement before this has come close to this kind of memetic understanding. But the nature of the internet is to adapt quickly and have a very short memory. The alt-right is currently a novelty in the mainstream, and they're attracting a sort of shock-jock, "Did he say that? What'll he say next?" kind of audience. If you want Twitter followers or YouTube views, that's great. If you want to be successful in demotist society, it's not enough.


The exclamations of Spencer would be PR failures *if* he was trying to break through positively within the legacy media, since he chose not to neuter himself with MSM cameras running. But we're at a point in media history where failing in the legacy media doesn't matter, because the MSM's influence is in eclipse. It's the self-defined mainstream that has been neutered, such that the alternative media can ignore the MSM to almost the same extent that it was ignored by them for years. 

The new media no longer has to fail *or* succeed in making it in the legacy media, or meet it's approval, because it has passed it by. If the average CNN national audience at any given time is around 300,000, while Breitbart has over 30 million subscribers, exactly how does CNN get to control how Spencer et al get characterized? At this time, what that site reports about you is literally 100 times more crucial or influential than whatever Anderson Cooper says. 

The same goes for "$#@!posters on Reddit and Twitter"---acknowledging and engaging other voices in the new media IS a key part of how the movement gets things done. Trump is President in large part because he became an edgelord, and banged out all those tweets. Many of the meme victories came from those comment exchanges, where the new narrative was won on a digital battlefield, in hand-to-hand/mouse-to-mouse combat. The infowar fight is now on a grassroots dominated playing field, not the elite dominated communications. The alt media simply does not have to 'clean up' its image to keep growing a era where it is the old media that is relatively untrusted and unlistened to.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Trump is President in large part because he became an edgelord, and banged out all those tweets. Many of the meme victories came from those comment exchanges, where the new narrative was won on a digital battlefield, in hand-to-hand/mouse-to-mouse combat. The infowar fight is now on a grassroots dominated playing field, not the elite dominated communications. The alt media simply does not have to 'clean up' its image to keep growing a era where it is the old media that is relatively untrusted and unlistened to.


I'm pretty sure this is 100% incorrect.

My view is that Trump won because WWC - who don't spend much time online at all - finally jettisoned the MSM narratives and went for the one guy who they (wrongly) perceived to be an "outsider".  Trump won in rural rustbelt counties that had previously gone Blue.  Those folks don't give a damn about "memetics", or tweets, or "infowars".  They are tired of being portrayed as racist because they agree with the (elementary) notion of a national border.  They are tired of being portrayed as bigoted because they don't like the idea of a man dressing up as a woman and using the women's restroom.  And they bought what the snake oil salesman with the audacious blonde comb-over sold them.

Frankly, the alt-right had little to do with it, from my view.  And that's a good thing, because those folks are gross.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Not for much longer, if you''re not careful.


True, we must play things smart but not hesitate, hesitation equals a headshot.





> I agree.


Great, so lets smash them, maybe limit their power via slander laws.





> That's true, but that's all the more reason why you shouldn't make it so damn easy for them. Become undeniable. If you're being watched by your enemies _don't_ give them exactly what they want. It ain't rocket science. Nazism is memetic cancer. 
> 
> Some people (Cernovich) are saying Spencer is an agent sent to destroy the alt-right. I don't buy this, but if he were, I can't think of one single thing he should have done differently, other than throwing the salute back.
> 
> >"We want to be a mainstream lobbying organization."
> >"The media aren't people, but soulless golems."
> >"Hail Trump!"
> >*Audience Heils Trump*
> >"It's the Roman Salute!"
> ...


If anything positive can come out, we got tens of millions of dollars of free coverage, then again the media has been screaming "The Nazis are coming, The Nazis are coming!" for so long it just might be another nail in the coffin.




> Has he, though? He had a chance to bring the alt-right into the mainstream and failed hard. You don't get a do-over at an opportunity like that. Mike Cernovich and the like are thinking long term, whereas Spencer has high-time-preference and an apparent ravenous desire for fame and notoriety.


It was a laps in judgement, the idea this one act is not going to sink us. If anything the "mainstreaming" will happen sooner as the cucksertivies will try and stop/slow down Trump.

Factor in the total melt down of the DNC (whites fleeing (not just working class but more and more middle/upper middle class), "radicals" like Eilson driving out the Zionists, in fighting (gays vs Muslim, Whites vs non Whites, Blacks vs Hispanics, etc)) and we will look better and better as we have a better message of a bright future...

1) The social contract, institutions and culture in White countries is breaking down. We are the only ones who are willing to restore it even if that means doing so by methods that "upset" or "offend" others.

2) The economic situation globally and in White Countries is heading for an ugly reset. 

3) It is growing because people more intelligent and with more common sense than you can see these problems. The key is we can now see the people we thought we could trust blocking even discussion of these problems let alone their solutions.

Alot of people, indoctrinated in left wing ideology and multi-culti since a child are rejecting it as soon as we get into the real world (outside school and college). That's what happens when we realise we are the target.

4) Through the rapid expansion of competing ideas and analysis on the Alt-Right it will become the only group that is capable of offering solutions to the first two problems. We are also the only group that will follow through in implementing these solutions. 

*5) We only need to win once
*




> The alt-right needs to decide what kind of movement it's going to be. Do you want to be a memetically savvy right-populist movement that actually gets things accomplished, or do you want to be a movement of edgelords and $#@!posters on Reddit and Twitter? As I've said, the alt-right understands memetics, particularly online. That's a huge boon. No right wing movement before this has come close to this kind of memetic understanding. But the nature of the internet is to adapt quickly and have a very short memory. The alt-right is currently a novelty in the mainstream, and they're attracting a sort of shock-jock, "Did he say that? What'll he say next?" kind of audience. If you want Twitter followers or YouTube views, that's great. If you want to be successful in demotist society, it's not enough.


Any tips, advice? 

Considering we are making decades worth of gains, actions, effects in just a few years, we are making up for lost time, and having to fight a muti pronged war. Against the entire Democartic Party, Half of the GOP (cucks, Establishment, Neo cons, etc). The media is dying fast so that is a plus.

We are having some growth pains, this is normal and was going to happen no matter what.





> No, that's not why libertarians failed. Being detached from reality never hurt any political movement. There are _still_ Marxist/Leninists to this day. These people haven't even gotten around to post-Marxism FFS.
> Libertarians failed because of a lack of leadership, a lack of realistic goals and infighting. "We don't need leaders, maaaaan! Leaders are for statists!" Lack of thede-awareness hurt libertarians, but the problems are far larger than that.


It was Libertarians that did them in, also the idea that allowing in people to the nation to vote against them clearly did not/will never help them.

You left out Entryism by the left as a reason why they failed. They had some leadership Rothbard/Hoppe, etc but they were pushed out by entryist leftists.




> The exclamations of Spencer would be PR failures *if* he was trying to break through positively within the legacy media, since he chose not to neuter himself with MSM cameras running. But we're at a point in media history where failing in the legacy media doesn't matter, because the MSM's influence is in eclipse. It's the self-defined mainstream that has been neutered, such that the alternative media can ignore the MSM to almost the same extent that it was ignored by them for years. 
> 
> The new media no longer has to fail *or* succeed in making it in the legacy media, or meet it's approval, because it has passed it by. If the average CNN national audience at any given time is around 300,000, while Breitbart has over 30 million subscribers, exactly how does CNN get to control how Spencer et al get characterized? At this time, what that site reports about you is literally 100 times more crucial or influential than whatever Anderson Cooper says. 
> 
> The same goes for "$#@!posters on Reddit and Twitter"---acknowledging and engaging other voices in the new media IS a key part of how the movement gets things done. Trump is President in large part because he became an edgelord, and banged out all those tweets. Many of the meme victories came from those comment exchanges, where the new narrative was won on a digital battlefield, in hand-to-hand/mouse-to-mouse combat. The infowar fight is now on a grassroots dominated playing field, not the elite dominated communications. The alt media simply does not have to 'clean up' its image to keep growing a era where it is the old media that is relatively untrusted and unlistened to.


Bravo....The media demonizing us does not effect it, if anything it proves us right in the context of  "if they hate us, me must be the good guys".

They have some pull, but a smaller and smaller effect..




> I'm pretty sure this is 100% incorrect.
> 
> My view is that Trump won because WWC - who don't spend much time online at all - finally jettisoned the MSM narratives and went for the one guy who they (wrongly) perceived to be an "outsider".  Trump won in rural rustbelt counties that had previously gone Blue.  Those folks don't give a damn about "memetics", or tweets, or "infowars".  They are tired of being portrayed as racist because they agree with the (elementary) notion of a national border.  They are tired of being portrayed as bigoted because they don't like the idea of a man dressing up as a woman and using the women's restroom.  And they bought what the snake oil salesman with the audacious blonde comb-over sold them.
> 
> Frankly, the alt-right had little to do with it, from my view.  And that's a good thing, because those folks are gross.


Who would have thought calling people "racist, bigot, homophobic, Islamophobic, backwards, "poor educated" w  outsourcing their jobs, dumping hordes of 3rd worlders around them, taxing them more and more, and working to disarm them would result in them voting against you?

Really? Not even in office and you know this? So what are the Powerball Numbers?

Really? How are we "gross"? Because we understand that not everyone values the same things and does not have the same potential.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Who would have thought calling people "racist, bigot, homophobic, Islamophobic, backwards, "poor educated" w  outsourcing their jobs, dumping hordes of 3rd worlders around them, taxing them more and more, and working to disarm them would result in them voting against you?
> 
> Really? Not even in office and you know this? So what are the Powerball Numbers?


Uh, I was disputing this notion:




> Trump is President in large part because he became an edgelord, and banged out all those tweets. Many of the meme victories came from those comment exchanges, where the new narrative was won on a digital battlefield, in hand-to-hand/mouse-to-mouse combat.


I thought that would have been obvious since - you know - I quoted it.  




> Really? How are we "gross"? Because we understand that not everyone values the same things and does not have the same potential.


Correct.  You're detestable because you peddle in identity politics.  Bear in mind, I don't particularly care if one holds such views independently.  Where it becomes a problem is when people activate those views politically.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Uh, I was disputing this notion:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that would have been obvious since - you know - I quoted it.  
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  You're detestable because you peddle in identity politics.  Bear in mind, I don't particularly care if one holds such views independently.  Where it becomes a problem is when people activate those views politically.


W
Well tell that to the left, they have been doing it since the the teens and have been kicking our asses...Time to fight fire with fire.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

This is what the seven alt-right accounts have been up to:

@FashyGoyMemes

Praise Kek! [insert meme]

@DethtooCUCKS

thisis unifar! i hav 2 go scool when TRUMP becoms prsiednt, my mom wont let me stay ohme

@EdgyGoyim

[insert picture of Pepe holding a _Jude_ star]

@WhiteGirlsRMagic

[insert picture of white woman with MAGA hat]

@ AlphaMale88

Im not grounded anymore, now I can live tweet the Trump inoguratian!!!

@ProudNorseman

i will avenge Richard Spencer!  Here is my hammer!

@AryanGirl

[insert picture of herself dressed in a revealing women's Nazi uniform (made in Japan)]

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> This is what the seven alt-right accounts have been up to:
> 
> @FashyGoyMemes
> 
> Praise Kek! [insert meme]
> 
> @DethtooCUCKS
> 
> thisis unifar! i hav 2 go scool when TRUMP becoms prsiednt, my mom wont let me stay ohme
> ...


Sorry I can not hear you over the sound of the wall being built.

♫Do you hear the people REE?♫

----------


## fr33

> This is what the seven alt-right accounts have been up to:
> 
> @FashyGoyMemes
> 
> Praise Kek! [insert meme]
> 
> @DethtooCUCKS
> 
> thisis unifar! i hav 2 go scool when TRUMP becoms prsiednt, my mom wont let me stay ohme
> ...


If I wanted to I could make a post just like your's with Ron Paul supporters and their pathetic tweets.

Nah, nevermind tweets.

Ken Sorenson, paid to support Ron Paul, sentenced to 15 months in prison. $25,000 of our donations were given to him to switch from Bachmann to Paul.

Maybe that doesn't bother you.

Kent Sorenson, the best Ron Paul money can buy, not only wanted welfare recipients to pass drug tests, he also opposed letting medical marijuana even reach the floor in Iowa to be voted on. Of course, he was arrested for marijuana when younger. Of course he failed drug tests 3 times for marijuana after being found guilty for taking Ron Paul's payoff. He'll do 15 months in prison and probably take any weed smuggled to him along with prison hooch but remember, he did not support legalizing marijuana even for medical use.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/sto...risy/19088101/

$25,000 down the drain and nothing to show for it. Especially no principles.

The alt right memed trump into the presidency and we did jack $#@!.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> The alt right memed trump into the presidency and we did jack $#@!.


Just because the alt-right was on the winning side doesn't mean that they caused Trump to win.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Just because the alt-right was on the winning side doesn't mean that they caused Trump to win.


But they were his core constituency. Hillary was basically right about the deplorables.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> But they were his core constituency. Hillary was basically right about the deplorables.


They were a very small minority of his supporters.

----------


## RJB

> But they were his core constituency. Hillary was basically right about the deplorables.


You must be a very bitter person to make such a blanket statement.  Did her loss affect you that negatively?

----------


## TheCount

> But they were his core constituency. Hillary was basically right about the deplorables.


Just because they were the most vocal doesn't mean that they are numerous or effective.  I think they circle-jerked around the campaign without accomplishing much of anything.

----------


## RJB

> Just because they were the most vocal doesn't mean that they are numerous or effective.  I think they circle-jerked around the campaign without accomplishing much of anything.


I look at the alt-right with Republicans as the nutty SJWs with the Democrats.  They are the freakshows that draw the attention.  They are the boogie men of today.  Stereotypes are usually based on a very small minority that catches the most attention and MSNBC and FOX feed on it.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Just because they were the most vocal doesn't mean that they are numerous or effective.  I think they circle-jerked around the campaign without accomplishing much of anything.


I agree with that. They were in the minority, even within that 20% or so of the country that ended up voting for him. But he wouldn't have won either the GOP nomination or the general election without them.

Also, outside of that crowd, I think most of the people who ended up casing votes for Trump in November did so over serious objections, more so than in most elections.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Just because the alt-right was on the winning side doesn't mean that they caused Trump to win.


Keep telling yourself that.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> But they were his core constituency. Hillary was basically right about the deplorables.


Anyone who would side with that thing over us is the enemy. So because we refuse to be slaves, to be displaced in our nation by hostile aliens we are the "bad guys".

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> They were a very small minority of his supporters.


And yet we memed, and punched above our weight class.




> You must be a very bitter person to make such a blanket statement.  Did her loss affect you that negatively?


Some people would rather rule over an ash pile rather then see someone else in power.




> I look at the alt-right with Republicans as the nutty SJWs with the Democrats.  They are the freakshows that draw the attention.  They are the boogie men of today.  Stereotypes are usually based on a very small minority that catches the most attention and MSNBC and FOX feed on it.


Wrong.

What shameless dishonesty. I don't know what I despise more about conservatives, their fecklessness or their smug, shameless, self-righteous dishonesty. Tactics are not politics are not objectives are not ideals; just as the US Marines did not become the Wehrmacht by adopting maneuver warfare, the Alt-Right will not become SJWs due to the effective use of rhetoric and going on the offensive. The fact that the ends _may or may not justify the means does not mean that the ends are the means.

American conservatism is a failed political posture; it can reasonably be described as the political philosophy of failure. That is why the Alt-Right is the only reasonable political philosophy for anyone who wishes to oppose the madness of SJWs and the Left's dream of a fully converged social justice state. Nothing else offers more than the promise - usually false - of holding one's political ground.

_ Alt-Right is the only current political philosophy that is in harmony with science, history, reason, and current events.






> I agree with that. They were in the minority, even within that 20% or so of the country that ended up voting for him. But he wouldn't have won either the GOP nomination or the general election without them.
> 
> Also, outside of that crowd, I think most of the people who ended up casing votes for Trump in November did so over serious objections, more so than in most elections.


It was us, along with pissed off members of the base at the total failure (or logical outcome of controlled opposition) that rekted the ruling class in the GOP and the 1st week in office he has rewarded us vastly.

They voted for us under objection because they are starting to reject the myths and lies they were fed the entire lives, red pills are bitter to swallow but they in the end make you healthier, wealthier, wiser, and freeer.

Trump?...He is only the beginning. If we can smash the left in the time we have, we can restore the Republic to is full glory.

----------


## RJB

> What shameless dishonesty. ;


Meh.  What shameless trolling.

----------


## MallsRGood

> This is what the seven alt-right accounts have been up to:
> 
> @FashyGoyMemes
> 
> Praise Kek! [insert meme]
> 
> @DethtooCUCKS
> 
> thisis unifar! i hav 2 go scool when TRUMP becoms prsiednt, my mom wont let me stay ohme
> ...


Semi-literate protestors...

Being taught/egged on by semi-literate 'teachers.' 

...of the sad and mediocratic teachers' colleges.

This is what you get.

Damn you Gutenberg.

----------


## timosman

> Semi-literate protestors...
> 
> Being taught/egged on by semi-literate 'teachers.' 
> 
> ...of the sad and mediocratic teachers' colleges.
> 
> This is what you get.
> 
> Damn you Gutenberg.


What does Gutenberg have to do with anything?

----------


## MallsRGood

> What does Gutenberg have to do with anything?


He made the rabble think it can think.

Illiteracy is much better.

See the inside of Saint Mark's.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If that is what you think , all I can tell ya is stay clear of the African Coast by several hours .


And here we have somebody apparently passing off the ability to commit piracy on the high seas as a sign of intelligence.  Oh, where does it stop?

----------


## MallsRGood

> And here we have somebody apparently passing off the ability to commit piracy on the high seas as a sign of intelligence.  Oh, where does it stop?


Give him a break, he's an injun.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Meh.  What shameless trolling.


We get it, you have no reply, no defense against failed ideals...

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> He made the rabble think it can think.
> 
> Illiteracy is much better.
> 
> See the inside of Saint Mark's.


 Yeah how dare people think they can better themselves!



> And here we have somebody apparently passing off the ability to commit piracy on the high seas as a sign of intelligence.  Oh, where does it stop?


I never said that, maybe you should learn to read THEN comment.

We get it, you guys are mad that some of your ideas are been seen as the unworkable idealism they are. Its not OUR fault they failed. 

Who would have known importing hostile cultures, peoples, with lower IQ and vote 80% for welfare/bigger gov, commit more crime/terrorism would be a major threat against our civil rights, wealth, unity, etc and people would work to stop it?

----------


## RJB

> We get it, you have no reply, no defense against failed ideals...


I really don't know what you're talking about.  Either you are purposely trying to look for an internet fight or you lack comprehension.  Let's relook at my post that caused you to call me dishonest.






> I look at the alt-right with Republicans as the nutty SJWs with the Democrats.  They are the freakshows that draw the attention.  They are the boogie men of today.


How is that dishonest?  A good portion of the left sees the entire alt-right (and republicans and libertarians for that matter) as neo-Nazis (boogie men.)  The media thrives on showing a complete moron from the other side of the political spectrum and painting the other side as such.  All MSNBC has to do is show a picture of a klansmen's hood and every good liberal will be for or against whatever their chosen media wants them to be against.  FOX News is not any different. 

What may have set you off is me saying that I see them as the same.  That was bad wording.  I should have said they are *used in the same way* by the other sides for propaganda reasons.




> Stereotypes are usually based on a very small minority that catches the most attention and MSNBC and FOX feed on it.


  And that is self explanatory.

----------


## tod evans

> I really don't know what you're talking about.  Either you are purposely trying to look for an internet fight or you lack comprehension.


The poster in question has a proven track record of this behavior, don't give it a second thought.

You'll get a more intelligent argument from the 'low IQ' people he rails on about..

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> How is that dishonest?  A good portion of the left sees the entire alt-right (and republicans and libertarians for that matter) as neo-Nazis (boogie men.)  The media thrives on showing a complete moron from the other side of the political spectrum and painting the other side as such.  All MSNBC has to do is show a picture of a klansmen's hood and every good liberal will be for or against whatever their chosen media wants them to be against.  FOX News is not any different.


Anyone to the right of Marx is seen/called Nazi no matter what, people no longer care about being called a nazi as the cost of inaction is far too high.
Its just becoming more and more clear to the great middle of people that the left can not stop and has to be stopped.

Well that MSM is dying a death that is very well earned, and leftists are sheep who believe anything they are told, that is why they are leftists.







> The poster in question has a proven track record of this behavior, don't give it a second thought.
> 
> You'll get a more intelligent argument from the 'low IQ' people he rails on about..


You have a track record of changing the subject, never answering the most basic questions.

----------


## tod evans

> You have a track record of changing the subject, never answering the most basic questions.


Have you asked a question?

Have you asked me a question?





> To whom are you speaking?
> 
> Certainly not I, you may find my posts in this thread by clicking on the number of posts and then scrolling down to my name and clicking on the number corresponding. [edit] For a link since typing and comprehension both seem to cause you problems
> 
> Are you capable of discourse? 
> 
> Is there something you'd care to discuss with me?
> 
> Be forewarned though I don't speak cyber kid or any of the other bastardizations of the English language except Hillbilly and some Coonass...



Maybe you could enlist one of those low 'IQ people' to help you express yourself on an English speaking forum.........

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Anyone who would side with that thing over us is the enemy. So because we refuse to be slaves, to be displaced in our nation by hostile aliens we are the "bad guys".


If you support Trump, you don't refuse to be slaves. You welcome enslavement.

And libertarianism isn't just about refusing to be a slave, but also refusing to enslave others.

Also, where do you get this idea of being displaced in our nation by hostile aliens? Who's displacing anyone?

----------


## timosman

> If you support Trump, you don't refuse to be slaves. You welcome enslavement.
> 
> And libertarianism isn't just about refusing to be a slave, but also refusing to enslave others.
> 
> Also, where do you get this idea of being displaced in our nation by hostile aliens? Who's displacing anyone?


People like you displacing rational members.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> If you support Trump, you don't refuse to be slaves. You welcome enslavement.
> 
> And libertarianism isn't just about refusing to be a slave, but also refusing to enslave others.
> 
> Also, where do you get this idea of being displaced in our nation by hostile aliens? Who's displacing anyone?


Says the faction which allows by the end result of their actions welfare voters to dis/replace them and vote away their rights/wealth. 

Are you $#@!ing kidding? Have you seen how the state of CA or the greater Southwest has been transformed into Northern Mexico, or how Miami has become a 3rd world city?

How you noticed how once red areas in the MidWest are flood with refugees who vote largely left? 

Where do you live, what state. I bet its no where close to the border.

But hey keep denying reality, its not like that ever is ruinous right?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Have you asked a question?
> 
> Have you asked me a question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you could enlist one of those low 'IQ people' to help you express yourself on an English speaking forum.........


Use the search function.

But hey, by all mean bring up non issues and avoid real issues, like immigration, culture, IQ, voting habits, and their impact on election/culture/future.

----------


## tod evans

> Use the search function.
> 
> But hey, by all mean bring up non issues and avoid real issues, like immigration, *culture, IQ*, voting habits, and their impact on election/culture/*future.*


I did bring up what you refer to as 'real issues' in the very post you quoted, I even underlined the specific issues that my post addressed.

Reading my post you might have the mental acuity to deduce that I made the suggestion that you employ one of the low IQ people in the future to aid you in conversing with the English language.........Then again it's entirely possible that you don't possess such acuity...

If there's a post within this thread where you've actually posed a question to me specifically I've missed it, so please kindly have the low IQ person you retain point out the post and explain how it was directed to me and I'll gladly respond.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I did bring up what you refer to as 'real issues' in the very post you quoted, I even underlined the specific issues that my post addressed.
> 
> Reading my post you might have the mental acuity to deduce that I made the suggestion that you employ one of the low IQ people in the future to aid you in conversing with the English language.........Then again it's entirely possible that you don't possess such acuity...
> 
> If there's a post within this thread where you've actually posed a question to me specifically I've missed it, so please kindly have the low IQ person you retain point out the post and explain how it was directed to me and I'll gladly respond.


So you can not make a point so you resort to whining about grammar. Please keep this up.

But hey keep ignoring real issues, like Immigration, voting patterns, etc. Its not like it matters because we are all the same blank slates, right?

----------


## anaconda

Hannity calls establishment liberals the "Alt Left."

----------


## timosman

> Its not like it matters because we are all the same blank slates, right?


Exactly!

----------


## timosman

> Hannity calls establishment liberals the "Alt Left."


He is right. These $#@!s are wrecking the party.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Hannity calls establishment liberals the "Alt Left."


"Call them Marxist, just call them Marxists" 




> Exactly!


Its shame some people believe lies even after they are proven to be lies..

----------


## timosman

> Its shame some people believe lies even after they are proven to be lies..


#obvioussarcasm

----------


## pcosmar

> They were a very small minority of his supporters.


Likely a small minority of Dr Paul's supporters as well.

but never welcomed here at the time.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Hannity calls establishment liberals the "Alt Left."


Just call them marxist.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Just call them marxist.


The problem with that is that it implies that Trump isn't a marxist.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> The problem with that is that it implies that Trump isn't a marxist.



Dont care as he is not one. To you anyone who does not live up to your impossible standards is a "statist" do not care anymore.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Dont care as he is not one. To you anyone who does not live up to your impossible standards is a "statist" do not care anymore.


He supports single-payer healthcare, right?

How is that not marxist?

The problem with you and Trump isn't that you guys fail to meet an impossible standard. It's that you don't even support anything resembling freedom at even a modest level. The little freedom we still have in America now, is too much, it seems.

----------


## timosman

> He supports single-payer healthcare, right?
> 
> How is that not marxist?
> 
> The problem with you and Trump isn't that you guys fail to meet an impossible standard. It's that you don't even support anything resembling freedom at even a modest level. The little freedom we still have in America now, is too much, it seems.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> He supports single-payer healthcare, right?
> 
> How is that not marxist?
> 
> The problem with you and Trump isn't that you guys fail to meet an impossible standard. It's that you don't even support anything resembling freedom at even a modest level. The little freedom we still have in America now, is too much, it seems.


He does not.

But hey allowing in welfare voters and people who by their own culture and IQ will vote marxist is supporting freedom, right? Even if you are out voted and lose everything, right?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> He does not.


Source?




> But hey allowing in welfare voters and people who by their own culture and IQ will vote marxist is supporting freedom, right? Even if you are out voted and lose everything, right?


Actually, as a matter of fact, restricting immigration is Marxist.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Source?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, as a matter of fact, restricting immigration is Marxist.


No it is not Marxism but keep screaming your lies.

Its just knee jerk reactionism, just like the left screaming "RACIST!"at everything it does not like.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> No it is not Marxism but keep screaming your lies.
> 
> Its just knee jerk reactionism, just like the left screaming "RACIST!"at everything it does not like.


Still waiting for your source for saying Trump doesn't support single payer healthcare.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Still waiting for your source for saying Trump doesn't support single payer healthcare.



That`s right, change the subject.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Source?
> 
> Actually, as a matter of fact, restricting immigration is Marxist.


I wouldn't say its Marxist, but maybe socialism. But in the case of immigration I don't see why socialism would be wrong.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I wouldn't say its Marxist, but maybe socialism. But in the case of immigration I don't see why socialism would be wrong.


It's marxist in the sense that it was part of Marx's own socialist prescriptions.

It's wrong in the case of immigration for the same reasons that it's always wrong.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> It's wrong in the case of immigration for the same reasons that it's always wrong.


I used to believe that too, that all socialism is always wrong. But I discovered that the founding fathers were right, there are very minimal roles for government like the military, making roads etc but not much else. 

What kind of immigration policy do you support?

----------


## undergroundrr

> No it is not Marxism but keep screaming your lies.


It's Marxist. No screaming necessary.




> ...with classical liberal, neo-classical, Chicago school, Austrian, and even some Keynesian economists agreeing that relatively unfettered labor mobility maximizes economic growth. John Stuart Mill even went so far as to say that migration was “one of the primary sources of progress.” Adam Smith opposed mercantilist restrictions not just on capital, but on labor as well. Ludwig von Mises, the guru of the Austrian school, advocated a system of free trade where capital and labor would be employed wherever conditions are most favorable for production.
> 
> The one prominent exception was Karl Marx. Although he doesn’t seem to have treated this subject in a systematic way, his comments here and there suggest that he was no fan of immigration. For example, he regarded England’s decision to absorb the “surplus” Irishmen being driven out of their country during the Great Famine not as a benefit but a ploy by the English bourgeoisie to “force down wages and lower the material and moral position of the English working class.” The popular, modern-day restrictionist canard that immigration from the Third World to rich countries is tantamount to “importing poverty” has its genesis in Marxist thought. Indeed, far from being embarrassed by this lineage, restrictionists tout it. Consider this quote by Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, the premier restrictionist outfit in the country: “Employer organizations spend enormous resources lobbying the government to import a ‘reserve army of labor,’ to use Marx’s phrase, so that they can hold down their labor costs and avoid unionization.”
> 
> It is ironic that half of the public in the free world, including America, the land of immigrants, sides not with free-market economists like Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises—but with Marx, the father of socialism.


http://reason.org/news/show/immigrat...y-open-borders

Is that over your head? Read it again if so.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Should our country be a dumping ground for the rest of the world?

Should it be?

And is continuing to be a dumping ground for the world a strategy likely to defeat Marx...... somehow?  If so, I don't see it. Please explain the brilliance of this strategy. Thanks.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Should our country be a dumping ground for the rest of the world?
> 
> Should it be?
> 
> And is continuing to be a dumping ground for the world a strategy likely to defeat Marx...... somehow?  If so, I don't see it. Please explain the brilliance of this strategy. Thanks.


As always, the open border zealots never answer the questions, they just move, dodge, deny, lie and scream "STATIST!!"

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> It's Marxist. No screaming necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> http://reason.org/news/show/immigrat...y-open-borders
> 
> Is that over your head? Read it again if so.


And the end result is importing people who vote for Marxism, so letting in people who vote for Marxism is some how less Marxist then keeping them out? 

We get it, you are an ideologue.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> What kind of immigration policy do you support?


Keeping the government out of it and leaving it up to the free market.

----------


## undergroundrr

> And is continuing to be a dumping ground for the world a strategy likely to defeat Marx...... somehow?


Bush: "I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." Congratulations, your immigration plan is based on the same rationale as TARP.

EDIT: And I gotta say man, these are my brothers and sisters. They are NEVER trash to get dumped.




> And the end result is importing people who vote for Marxism, so letting in people who vote for Marxism is some how less Marxist then keeping them out? 
> 
> We get it, you are an ideologue.


There are some principles I try to stick to. 

Since I seem to have gotten a begrudging "OK, maybe Marx was against open borders," I'll tell you frankly that the "they're importing Democrat voters" claim is lacking in a strong basis in causality.  As much as alt-right may like their little confirmation bias statistics charts, all bets are off when people actually get to participate in something that looks like a free market.

The idea that Whites self-identify as libertarian more than hispanics is being seriously called into question - 
http://thoughtsonliberty.com/the-sur...al-libertarian
https://www.cato.org/blog/latinos-ar...an-candidate-0
http://www.newsweek.com/libertarians...e-think-470198

The anti-immigration argument is in essence, "Get them out of here so our welfare system can work properly." The opposite of what Ron Paul prescribed. (I know, he's an old fogie ideologue)

Whites ("citizens") caused the Fed. Whites caused the IRS. Whites caused the New Deal.  Nothing immigrants have done holds a candle to these.

Take away whites' welfare and I promise Democrats will rule congress pretty much forever. Hispanics on the other hand, have been shown to believe in the efficacy of hard work in much higher percentages than the general populace (recent Pew study Molyneux has been quoting from). They self-identify as libertarian pretty much identically with whites (11% & 12% respectively, again Pew). And twice the percentage of Hispanics as whites polled were for the one guy among the four major 2016 Pres contenders who said welfare needed to be reformed - Gary Johnson. trump and Bannon have *never dared* to utter a word about welfare reform. trump won the white vote handily.

America isn't being destroyed by immigrants. It's being destroyed by policies of wealth redistribution. Immigrants maybe the only thing keeping it from going down.

Anyway, the trump/Bannon immigration message isn't about keeping Mexicans away from American jobs, even if that was a good thing. It's the same neocon Islamofascism fear Kristol, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Cheney et al have been manipulating the sheeple with for decades. A wall will keep the terrorists out? Yeah, and gun control will keep bad guys from getting guns. Works great.

"They're importing Democrats" is code for More Welfare For Whites.  I've yet to hear ANYBODY aligned with the alt-right really get passionate about welfare reform.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Keeping the government out of it and leaving it up to the free market.


The free market will bring a guzzilion immigrants here for cheap labor. They don't care. When there weren't regulations of the free market they'd have children work long hours for pennies in dangerous conditions.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The free market will bring a guzzilion immigrants here for cheap labor.


Good.

----------


## timosman

> Good.


Go on ....

----------


## undergroundrr

> The free market will bring a guzzilion immigrants here for cheap labor.


"[Immigrants] force down wages and lower the material and moral position of the English working class.” - Karl Marx

----------


## timosman

> "[Immigrants] force down wages and lower the material and moral position of the English working class.” - Karl Marx


You can't attack progressive heroes like that!

----------


## undergroundrr

> You can't attack progressive heroes like that!


Here's another. 

“Without the reestablishment of freedom of migration throughout the world, there can be no lasting peace.” -Ludwig von Mises

Take that.

----------


## timosman

> Here's another. 
> 
> “Without the reestablishment of freedom of migration throughout the world, there can be no lasting peace.” -Ludwig von Mises
> 
> Take that.


It might be a good idea to end our wars first.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Take away whites' welfare and I promise Democrats will rule congress pretty much forever. Hispanics on the other hand, have been shown to believe in the efficacy of hard work in much higher percentages than the general populace (recent Pew study Molyneux has been quoting from). They self-identify as libertarian pretty much identically with whites (11% & 12% respectively, again Pew). And twice the percentage of Hispanics as whites polled were for the one guy among the four major 2016 Pres contenders who said welfare needed to be reformed - Gary Johnson. trump and Bannon have *never dared* to utter a word about welfare reform. trump won the white vote handily.
> 
> America isn't being destroyed by immigrants. It's being destroyed by policies of wealth redistribution. Immigrants maybe the only thing keeping it from going down.


How willfully blind must one be to believe 12% of 100% is a successful result? Being more generous, even 25% of 100% (presumed Johnson voters) is still an abject failure.

Let's be perfectly clear: there are already enough white people here who are a problem when it comes to dealing with advocates of the welfare system. Liberty advocates have enough of a battle on hand dealing with the enemy already here. You want to add another 88 out of 100 people to those white people that support the welfare state? There is no way you can rig the numbers that will result in immigration bringing more libertarians than welfare supporters, so drop the intellectually disingenuous posturing. If you gave a damn about liberty _at all_ the only immigration allowed in would be the 12%.

And another issue: if we abolished the welfare state by government dictate, but there were an overwhelming majority of the population in favor of it, it would end up immediately returning. You cannot have a liberty focused society without a majority of the people being liberty focused. Libertarians are not winning the numbers battle, and all for the sake of your principles you want to hasten liberty's demise. The road to hell is most certainly paved with your good intentions.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Go on ....


It is disappointing that people here would say things like that in order to support government interference in the market, isn't it?

----------


## timosman

> It is disappointing that people here would say things like that in order to support government interference in the market, isn't it?


Yeah, it ruins the perfect picture you have in your head.

----------


## undergroundrr

> How willfully blind must one be to believe 12% of 100% is a successful result? Being more generous, even 25% of 100% (presumed Johnson voters) is still an abject failure.
> 
> Let's be perfectly clear: there are already enough white people here who are a problem when it comes to dealing with advocates of the welfare system. Liberty advocates have enough of a battle on hand dealing with the enemy already here. You want to add another 88 out of 100 people to those white people that support the welfare state? There is no way you can rig the numbers that will result in immigration bringing more libertarians than welfare supporters, so drop the intellectually disingenuous posturing. If you gave a damn about liberty _at all_ the only immigration allowed in would be the 12%.
> 
> And another issue: if we abolished the welfare state by government dictate, but there were an overwhelming majority of the population in favor of it, it would end up immediately returning. You cannot have a liberty focused society without a majority of the people being liberty focused. Libertarians are not winning the numbers battle, and all for the sake of your principles you want to hasten liberty's demise. The road to hell is most certainly paved with your good intentions.


That's a lot of words to say "Give up! Accept Marxism!"

Yes, it's significant that Hispanics match or exceed whites in libertarian tendencies.  They're quite visibly the true entrepreneurs in my community and are most welcome.

Libertarians are unlikely to ever win the numbers battle in the sense you mean. We're largely a bunch of mostly male cranky INTJ's and will remain so. For the general public, it's all education and persuasion. Check out the Pew study that shows that Hispanics reacted almost twice as negatively to being taxed as whites. It actually makes more sense to have a fresh crop of entrepreneurial-minded hard workers to preach to instead of brainwashed American Idol addicts.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Yeah, it ruins the perfect picture you have in your head.


Not just my head.

We actually have a mission here at this website.

----------


## undergroundrr

> It might be a good idea to end our wars first.


Welfare/warfare state is a single, indivisible unit. In case nobody's pointed that out to you.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> That's a lot of words to say "Give up! Accept Marxism!"
> 
> Yes, it's significant that Hispanics match or exceed whites in libertarian tendencies.  They're quite visibly the true entrepreneurs in my community and are most welcome


The ones that are here should be only those that are libertarian. There is a numbers battle for liberty. Unrestricted immigration will not tilt the scales in the favor of liberty.




> Libertarians are unlikely to ever win the numbers battle in the sense you mean.


They certainly won't with people like you numbering among the ranks and agitating for liberty's loss.




> We're largely a bunch of mostly male cranky INTJ's and will remain so. For the general public, it's all education and persuasion. Check out the Pew study that shows that Hispanics reacted almost twice as negatively to being taxed as whites. It actually makes more sense to have a fresh crop of entrepreneurial-minded hard workers to preach to instead of brainwashed American Idol addicts.


The numbers do not come out to a majority of Hispanics being opposed to the welfare state. You are intellectually disingenuous to the bone.

----------


## timosman

> You are intellectually disingenuous to the bone.


_Did I get caught?_

----------


## undergroundrr

> The ones that are here should be only those that are libertarian. There is a numbers battle for liberty. Unrestricted immigration will not tilt the scales in the favor of liberty.


Dude, how are you EVER going to get all those white Democrats and Republicans out of the country? Talk about an ideological (and authoritarian) pipedream?

----------


## timosman

> Dude, how are you EVER going to get all those white Democrats and Republicans out of the country? Talk about an ideological (and authoritarian) pipedream?


So you are saying you have a plan B?

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Dude, how are you EVER going to get all those white Democrats and Republicans out of the country? Talk about an ideological (and authoritarian) pipedream?


Those enemies of liberty already here don't have to be kicked out of the country. They have to be subverted and disenfranchised.

They just have to lose the numbers battle. It will not happen overnight. It will require every step possible to limit the growth of their numbers so that one day liberty can win. That includes limiting immigration and celebrating the poor birth rates of progressives. Giving those that love liberty a chance to outbreed them, and win the future.

This is a long term battle. Unlike you, who has accepted absolute defeat and seeks succor in your principles, others are willing to try _every little thing they can_ to tilt things in the favor of liberty.

That cannot happen with your open borders nonsense. You've made it obvious you have entirely given up on libertarians ever winning the numbers battle and are willing to aid the enemies of liberty in suppressing it. Why? So you can sleep better at night knowing you stuck to your principles. For me? Any principle that is destructive to kith and kin when pursued to its end is not a principle worth adhering to.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Those enemies of liberty already here don't have to be kicked out of the country. They have to be subverted and disenfranchised.
> 
> They just have to lose the numbers battle. It will not happen overnight. It will require every step possible to limit the growth of their numbers so that one day liberty can win. That includes limiting immigration and celebrating the poor birth rates of progressives. Giving those that love liberty a chance to outbreed them, and win the future.
> 
> This is a long term battle. Unlike you, who has accepted absolute defeat and seeks succor in your principles, others are willing to try _every little thing they can_ to tilt things in the favor of liberty.
> 
> That cannot happen with your open borders nonsense. You've made it obvious you have entirely given up on libertarians ever winning the numbers battle and are willing to aid the enemies of liberty in suppressing it. Why? So you can sleep better at night knowing you stuck to your principles. For me? Any principle that is destructive to kith and kin when pursued to its end is not a principle worth adhering to.


Yes, we are coming from different perspectives. When you say kith and kin, you are talking about your personal relations and possibly extending to others of your "kind," whatever that is. I'm more on the "all men are created equal" side of the spectrum.

Your eugenics plan and Marxist closed borders would get you what such schemes always have. In the end, you'll find that direct violence is the only process of elimination to reach your goal, which isn't really any different than that of Lenin or Stalin - eliminate dissension. Your tactics in this discussion indicate that you're not really into the messy but rewarding process of persuasion, a process that begins with listening.

Eschewing violence and supporting inalienable rights are the true long term battle. As you say, it won't happen overnight.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Yes, we are coming from different perspectives. When you say kith and kin, you are talking about your personal relations and possibly extending to others of your "kind," whatever that is. I'm more on the "all men are created equal" side of the spectrum.


All men being created equal does not give them equal intent. And therein lies the crux. Man is tribal, and that inclination is no mistake. There _are_ groups that would subvert and disenfranchise _you_ in order to advantageously situate themselves. Being prepared for that eventuality is... Human.




> Your eugenics plan and Marxist closed borders would get you what such schemes always have. In the end, you'll find that direct violence is the only process of elimination to reach your goal, which isn't really any different than that of Lenin or Stalin - eliminate dissension. Your tactics in this discussion indicate that you're not really into the messy but rewarding process of persuasion, a process that begins with listening.


Oh stop with the hysterics. Eugenics plan? Not in the slightest. They'll do it to themselves and all to the cheering of their enemies. No control needed.

Persuasion is not the only arrow in the quiver of liberty. This country did not have a revolution by persuasion alone. Groups of people with opposing views and a desire for power will inevitably come to violence. History verifies it over and over again.




> Eschewing violence and supporting inalienable rights are the true long term battle. As you say, it won't happen overnight.


A beautiful idea, one uniquely incapable of handling those that do not eschew violence. Unless you obtain a majority that both believes in inalienable rights _and is willing to guarantee them by force_ you will never have any means of stopping the violation of said rights.

Those that eschew violence altogether inevitably end up begging for their rights. Which is where we find ourselves today.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Unless you obtain a majority that both believes in inalienable rights _and is willing to guarantee them by force_ you will never have any means of stopping the violation of said rights.


Government force?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> How willfully blind must one be to believe 12% of 100% is a successful result? Being more generous, even 25% of 100% (presumed Johnson voters) is still an abject failure.
> 
> Let's be perfectly clear: there are already enough white people here who are a problem when it comes to dealing with advocates of the welfare system. Liberty advocates have enough of a battle on hand dealing with the enemy already here. You want to add another 88 out of 100 people to those white people that support the welfare state? There is no way you can rig the numbers that will result in immigration bringing more libertarians than welfare supporters, so drop the intellectually disingenuous posturing. If you gave a damn about liberty _at all_ the only immigration allowed in would be the 12%.
> 
> And another issue: if we abolished the welfare state by government dictate, but there were an overwhelming majority of the population in favor of it, it would end up immediately returning. You cannot have a liberty focused society without a majority of the people being liberty focused. Libertarians are not winning the numbers battle, and all for the sake of your principles you want to hasten liberty's demise. The road to hell is most certainly paved with your good intentions.


Its because they would rather lose everything then win if winning means being called names...

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> That's a lot of words to say "Give up! Accept Marxism!"
> 
> Yes, it's significant that Hispanics match or exceed whites in libertarian tendencies.  They're quite visibly the true entrepreneurs in my community and are most welcome.
> 
> Libertarians are unlikely to ever win the numbers battle in the sense you mean. We're largely a bunch of mostly male cranky INTJ's and will remain so. For the general public, it's all education and persuasion. Check out the Pew study that shows that Hispanics reacted almost twice as negatively to being taxed as whites. It actually makes more sense to have a fresh crop of entrepreneurial-minded hard workers to preach to instead of brainwashed American Idol addicts.


No, they dont. I do not care what you might think you see but a group who votes 60% plus for marxism is not Libertarian by any means. 

Sure, that is why you guys lose, not because your views of "everyone has a right to cross the border, take your job, impose their costs on you because it would be even worse to keep them out" does not appeal to the right and low IQ illiterates are not going to be able to understand them and will not turn away from voting themselves more "free" money.

*Entrepreneurship*
Immigrants and natives have very similar rates of entrepreneurship — 12.4 percent of immigrants are self-employed either full- or part-time, as are 12.8 percent of natives.Most of the businesses operated by immigrants and natives tend to be small. In 2015, only 16 percent of immigrant-owned businesses had more than 10 employees, as did 19 percent of native-owned businesses.

And they still vote against you! LOL, this is why Trumpism is the future, because people like you can not learn and refuse to accept the facts/data.

----------


## undergroundrr

> And they still vote against you! LOL, this is why Trumpism is the future, because people like you can not learn and refuse to accept the facts/data.


So do all the whites. Anybody who voted for a Democrat or Republican as President of the United States in 2016 voted against me. We now have what you call Trumpism - a big-government, warmonger progressive in the White House. If it's the future, it resembles the past.

Thanks for the entrepreneurship numbers. Those are useful. Immigrants do a lot with very little. Multi-generational Americans with a structure of support of perhaps a century or more aren't impressing me there.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Dude, how are you EVER going to get all those white Democrats and Republicans out of the country? Talk about an ideological (and authoritarian) pipedream?


Yeah, its the right and left that equal problems...Right?




> Those enemies of liberty already here don't have to be kicked out of the country. They have to be subverted and disenfranchised.
> 
> They just have to lose the numbers battle. It will not happen overnight. It will require every step possible to limit the growth of their numbers so that one day liberty can win. That includes limiting immigration and celebrating the poor birth rates of progressives. Giving those that love liberty a chance to outbreed them, and win the future.
> 
> This is a long term battle. Unlike you, who has accepted absolute defeat and seeks succor in your principles, others are willing to try _every little thing they can_ to tilt things in the favor of liberty.
> 
> That cannot happen with your open borders nonsense. You've made it obvious you have entirely given up on libertarians ever winning the numbers battle and are willing to aid the enemies of liberty in suppressing it. Why? So you can sleep better at night knowing you stuck to your principles. For me? Any principle that is destructive to kith and kin when pursued to its end is not a principle worth adhering to.


Limiting immigration, the wall, deportations, school vouchers/choice as well as the Internet/new media will break the back of the left. That is why they are rushing like hell to swamp us with low IQ to displace us in the ballot box and degenerate the nation into a failed Latin state.

He does not care, he would rather rot in Hell with a Halo then live in paradise if that means then some low IQ people and willing slaves are rotting in a Hell of their own creation.








> Yes, we are coming from different perspectives. When you say kith and kin, you are talking about your personal relations and possibly extending to others of your "kind," whatever that is. I'm more on the "all men are created equal" side of the spectrum.
> 
> Your eugenics plan and Marxist closed borders would get you what such schemes always have. In the end, you'll find that direct violence is the only process of elimination to reach your goal, which isn't really any different than that of Lenin or Stalin - eliminate dissension. Your tactics in this discussion indicate that you're not really into the messy but rewarding process of persuasion, a process that begins with listening.
> 
> Eschewing violence and supporting inalienable rights are the true long term battle. As you say, it won't happen overnight.


Marxism largely disgenic as is open borders/mass immigration.

All men are NOT created equal. It that is the case why are some born with better health or higher IQ?

All men are born equal subject to nature and nature`s law, full stop. 

Yeah, that is called "Defense". "Do not cross this wall or we will kill you". Works just fine for a gated community, we are just scaling it up.
you want to commit suicide? I support you, the sec you put the pistol at others is when you become dangers and we have to kill you to save ourselves.

And when you are out voted by tens of millions of imported welfare voters who can not understand or will not support those things?

This is why you guys will never achieve anything. You value your enemies more then your compatriots, the invader over your countrymen.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Government force?


It won't necessarily be a government as it exists now, but there certainly needs to be an organized force that must defend them. Otherwise it will fall victim to an organized force that will violate them. History is rife with examples of loosely organized, relatively stateless societies falling prey to the organized nation-states we see today. See: Native Americans.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Yeah, that is called "Defense". "Do not cross this wall or we will kill you". Works just fine for a gated community, we are just scaling it up.


And that's where you infringe on property rights. Why can't I invite my Iranian friend to fly over and hang out at my house?

Can we agree that you're not concerned about anybody within your government walls actually owning and having control over their property?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> So do all the whites. Anybody who voted for a Democrat or Republican as President of the United States in 2016 voted against me. We now have what you call Trumpism - a big-government, warmonger progressive in the White House. If it's the future, it resembles the past.
> 
> Thanks for the entrepreneurship numbers. Those are useful. Immigrants do a lot with very little. Multi-generational Americans with a structure of support of perhaps a century or more aren't impressing me there.


And Clinton was not far, far, far, far, far, far, worse? You people are so far removed from the real world. 

No, they do not. Have you seen the Welfare stats? http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Ill...ant-Households they do little with alot.

More over they do not even do as good as Native born American.

Yeah, why is that? Maybe they do not qualify for all the grants, loans, etc that "immigrants" have because they are "protected group".

Maybe its because they have to pay countless billions in taxes to support a bunch of welfare cases we bring in?

 it's just not exceptional enough to thrive while weighed down, Harrison Bergeron-like, with the deadweight of millions of immivasionists and the rule of it's own most corrupt, along with the failure to remember who we are.

We're exceptional enough to win whenever we try, but not exceptional enough to win resting on someone else's laurels.

But to hell with people like you, I guess people who went to the Moon with a slider ruler and on the edge of doing it again and this time to stay are not "impressive" enough compared to people who flood this nation by the millions and vote to strip you of your nation, culture, rights, wealth, and future.

Thank God people like you are losing and losing badly. As for us Real Americans, Real defenders of Liberty? We are not even close to tried of winning, we are only just not beginning. 

The wall is going up, its going be ten feet higher
The deportations are starting
Birthright ciztenship is over
1924 style Immigration Act  is coming. The Answer to 1965 is 1924!

I know the idea of lower taxes, lower crime rates, more unity, fewer welfare voters, and starting to win and reclaim our rights is "scary" if it means building a wall, sending invaders home, and keep out burdens.

You can scream as loud as you want, fewer and fewer people care as the cost of doing so is too high.
We are putting ourselves first, and if that means that you "principled" people get upset and we keep out burdens, threats, or just non compatible groups, that is more then ok with me. That is a none cost if not a bonus.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> And that's where you infringe on property rights. Why can't I invite my Iranian friend to fly over and hang out at my house?
> 
> Can we agree that you're not concerned about anybody within your government walls actually owning and having control over their property?


Wrong! LOL. If they pose a threat or burden I get a say, and I say no, and my vote is bigger then yours....More over, Why dont YOU go to Iran and visit THEM? 

I mean its not like Iran is a bad place to live?. I am concerned, that is why we are going to have walls, that is why we are going to limit immigration so to insure we are not displace. But you clearly do not care.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Wrong! LOL. If they pose a threat or burden I get a say, and I say no, and my vote is bigger then yours....More over, Why dont YOU go to Iran and visit THEM? 
> 
> I mean its not like Iran is a bad place to live?. I am concerned, that is why we are going to have walls, that is why we are going to limit immigration so to insure we are not displace. But you clearly do not care.


I care very much, about your property rights, about your economic liberty, about your freedom of association. Why? If you don't have yours, then I'm unlikely to have mine. The trumpies are the ones who continually express that they don't care what happens, as long as their pet issue gets lip service.

A little something, not for you RestorationOf*******, because you probably won't read it and even if you did, your mind would reject it within the first few words, and your skin will crawl when you encounter the proper used of the word liberal. _This_ is liberty, and it deserves Restoration. 




> ....imagine a world order in which liberalism is supreme....In this liberal world, or liberal part of the world, there is private property in the means of production. The working of the market is not hampered by government interference. There are no trade barriers; men can live and work where they want. Frontiers are drawn on the maps but they do not hinder the migrations of men and shipping of commodities. Natives do not enjoy rights that are denied to aliens. Governments and their servants restrict their activities to the protection of life, health, and property against fraudulent or violent aggression. They do not discriminate against foreigners. The courts are independent and effectively protect everybody against the encroachments of officialdom. Everyone is permitted to say, to write, and to print what he likes. Education is not subject to government interference. Governments are like night-watchmen whom the citizens have entrusted with the task of handling the police power. The men in office are regarded as mortal men, not as superhuman beings or as paternal authorities who have the right and duty to hold the people in tutelage. Governments do not have the power to dictate to the citizens what language they must use in their daily speech or in what language they must bring up and educate their children....
> 
> ....In such a world the state is not a metaphysical entity but simply the producer of security and peace. It is the night-watchman....But it fulfills this task in a satisfactory way. The citizen's sleep is not disturbed, bombs do not destroy his home, and if somebody knocks at his door late at night it is certainly neither the Gestapo nor the O.G.P.U.
> 
> The reality in which we have to live differs very much from this perfect world of ideal liberalism. But this is due only to the fact that men have rejected liberalism for etatism.


from Ludwig Von Mises - Omnipotent Government, 1944

Let's remember that this was written by a dirty, low-IQ immigrant who was brought to our country to vote for socialists, to steal somebody's job, to drive down wages of American workers. This is the man from whom we need to protect our kith and kin.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I care very much, about your property rights, about your economic liberty, about your freedom of association. Why? If you don't have yours, then I'm unlikely to have mine. The trumpies are the ones who continually express that they don't care what happens, as long as their pet issue gets lip service.


And if you bring in millions of people who will vote yours and mine away in the end we as a nation/people will not have any of our rights.

Its easier to keep these people out of our nation so they can not vote against us.







> A little something, not for you RestorationOf*******, because you probably won't read it and even if you did, your mind would reject it within the first few words, and your skin will crawl when you encounter the proper used of the word liberal. _This_ is liberty, and it deserves Restoration. 
> 
> 
> 
> from Ludwig Von Mises - Omnipotent Government, 1944
> 
> Let's remember that this was written by a dirty, low-IQ immigrant who was brought to our country to vote for socialists, to steal somebody's job, to drive down wages of American workers. This is the man from whom we need to protect our kith and kin.


And I can promise you that world will be made impossible if immigration is not stopped, because you will be out numbered and out voted.

These are the facts. No Von Mises was a very high IQed person, once again you are just putting words into my mouth. 

8-2 immigrants who do vote, vote Democratic, that is a fact, they lower wages and increase the cost of living, that is a fact, we have tens of millions out of a job or have an under paying one, that is a fact, we have people who are voting away our rights and future for a welfare check who should not have been allowed in, that is a fact.

Its not my fault you can not understand how immigration harms and can destroy a nation, history is littered with examples of it.

----------


## undergroundrr

> we have tens of millions out of a job or have an under paying one, that is a fact


Was this caused by Republicans or Democrats?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Was this caused by Republicans or Democrats?


Is adding millions more people, mostly low skilled going to help fix it? 

No, it will not.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Bush: "I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." Congratulations, your immigration plan is based on the same rationale as TARP.


 O-ho!  I have an immigration plan, now?!  What is it?  Pray tell!




> EDIT: And I gotta say man, these are my brothers and sisters. They are NEVER trash to get dumped.


 Wait, I thought you were going to explain the brilliance of the dumping ground plan to (at long last!) defeat our Nemesis, the evil Dr. Marx.  I hope that what happened was that, upon reflection, you realized Operation Be A Dumping Ground might not actually have any grounds for success, have anything to do with bringing down the wiley Dr. Marx and his system, and in fact may not be the best thought-out plan after all.  So, you have smartly shifted away from _that_ hopeless angle, and now your new "argument" (not that it can be rightly called that, but I'm charitable) is one of: *self-sacrifice*.  Because "Brother and Sisters" and "Love" and "Holding Hands Around the World."

Essentially, we must embark on a course of national masochism. We must. It's our Global Duty. Because anything else would just be cruel.  As cruel as a real green dress. 






> little confirmation bias statistics charts,


It's actually the left's own charts. It's the left's own words. The leftists have for decades been telling white people, and especially conservative white people, that they are going to demographically eliminate them.  They openly gloat about it. I have a book on my bookshelf in front of me called The Future is Ours, gloating about just that. White people just had never paid attention or taken it seriously. Until now.   Now, the majority of kids being born are non-white. The streets are jammed with illegal immigrants. The prisons are packed with black criminals. Whites are not having kids, and non-whites are. And so they finally realized the threat to totally disempower and wipe them out is credible. Realized it too late, of course,.... unless _seriously drastic_ action is taken. 

_Extreme_ action like, for example, to stop being narcissistic/modern/stupid and shortsighted/gay and start having kids again!

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> O-ho!  I have an immigration plan, now?!  What is it?  Pray tell!
> 
>  Wait, I thought you were going to explain the brilliance of the dumping ground plan to (at long last!) defeat our Nemesis, the evil Dr. Marx.  I hope that what happened was that, upon reflection, you realized Operation Be A Dumping Ground might not actually have any grounds for success, have anything to do with bringing down the wiley Dr. Marx and his system, and in fact may not be the best thought-out plan after all.  So, you have smartly shifted away from _that_ hopeless angle, and now your new "argument" (not that it can be rightly called that, but I'm charitable) is one of: *self-sacrifice*.  Because "Brother and Sisters" and "Love" and "Holding Hands Around the World."
> 
> Essentially, we must embark on a course of national masochism. We must. It's our Global Duty. Because anything else would just be cruel.  As cruel as a real green dress. 
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually the left's own charts. It's the left's own words. The leftists have for decades been telling white people, and especially conservative white people, that they are going to demographically eliminate them.  They openly gloat about it. I have a book on my bookshelf in front of me called The Future is Ours, gloating about just that. White people just had never paid attention or taken it seriously. Until now.   Now, the majority of kids being born are non-white. The streets are jammed with illegal immigrants. The prisons are packed with black criminals. Whites are not having kids, and non-whites are. And so they finally realized the threat to totally disempower and wipe them out is credible. Realized it too late, of course,.... unless _seriously drastic_ action is taken. 
> ...


Hence the word "cuck" and why it works so well...

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Good.


I don't know what to say to this other than we will have to agree to disagree. You seem to want to give power to the unscrupulous CEOs who only care about making a buck. They don't care about the environment or anything else which is why I support some limited regulation on these scoundrels.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Wait, I thought you were going to explain the brilliance of the dumping ground plan


Again, disconnect. If you must assign the designation of "human trash" to someone, it would be more appropriately applied to people who don't have the immense willpower it takes to pull up roots and emigrate for the sake of a better life for themselves and/or their families.

Just by stepping across the border, they've demonstrated fundamental personal strength, and an impulse to progress that is harder to detect among multi-generational Americans.




> It's actually the left's own charts. It's the left's own words.


I hope you'll read the rest of my post you briefly quoted. One can also use what you call "the left's own words" to depict a body of people who are hard-working, libertarian leaning, and far less indoctrinated than WASPs.  Here's a link back so you don't have to work too hard.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6418701

It's convenient on this board to paint the "liberal left" as a monolith of people who are on a focused course to destroy the "conservative right." That their invective and liberal tears are the gyrations of bad losers. Well partly. But a lot of the hysterics you see in social media and elsewhere from crying Democrats is real concern for real people they care for. They really believe that Democrats love everybody and Republicans hate brown people and gays. And caring for somebody you don't even know who isn't like you is a big positive in the world view of many. 

The fact is, those who are openly derisive and suspicious of those unlike themselves appropriately invite pity, whether it's a Democrat toward a Republican or an Anti-Immigrationist toward an Immigrant, or just simply a White against a Something Else. It's the mentality of one abused as a child who can never trust again. 

The second paragraph of the Declaration establishes equality of rights among _all men_ as the #1 reason that America must exist as a nation. It is compassion itself and leaves no room for your conception of human garbage.  A libertarian can be (perhaps should be, but almost never is) more openly, demonstrably, flagrantly compassionate, inclusive, loving to all of humanity than any other political inclination.

Regardless of all that lovey dovey nonsense, virtually every classical liberal theorist upon whose work libertarian thought stands has established that freedom of the movement of goods and people is fundamental to economic prosperity. 

Sure, they shouldn't get welfare (neither should whites). Priveleges of full citizenship should be regulated. But the alt-right chestnuts about immigrants (taking our jobs, voting for socialism, lowering our wages) all amount to restricting liberty for the sake of liberty. That will never cause prosperity, let alone peace.

----------


## otherone

> The fact is, those who are openly derisive and suspicious of those unlike themselves appropriately invite pity


I don't pity those who squawk about how much freer I'll be behind their fedgov controlled wall.

----------


## timosman

> Just by stepping across the border, they've demonstrated fundamental personal strength, and an impulse to progress that is harder to detect among multi-generational Americans.


Yeah, OK. The doctor will be with you shortly.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I don't pity those who squawk about how much freer I'll be behind their fedgov controlled wall.


That's the one that will be used to keep us in some day, right?  Same as Ron rightly pointed out during the 2012 debates?  That fedgov controlled wall?

----------


## otherone

> That's the one that will be used to keep us in some day, right?  Same as Ron rightly pointed out during the 2012 debates?  That fedgov controlled wall?


Ron Paul?  Of what relevance are HIS views to this forum?

----------


## undergroundrr

> Yeah, OK. The doctor will be with you shortly.


Dr. Paul is already with me. 

https://mises.org/blog/ron-paul-sums...ws-immigration

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Dr. Paul is already with me. 
> 
> https://mises.org/blog/ron-paul-sums...ws-immigration





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to undergroundrr again.


\\

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> The second paragraph of the Declaration establishes equality of rights among _all men_ as the #1 reason that America must exist as a nation. It is compassion itself and leaves no room for your conception of human garbage.  A libertarian can be (perhaps should be, but almost never is) more openly, demonstrably, flagrantly compassionate, inclusive, loving to all of humanity than any other political inclination.


Your version of a libertarian is the useful idiot for any group of people who would violate your rights. Compassion that is self-destructive is tantamount to idiocy.

Compassion is best reserved for those that will not do you harm and only those that will do you no harm.

There is an argument to be made for inviting immigrants of a libertarian bent. Those seeking liberty, not just the economic opportunity associated with the USA. As for those that would join the welfare voters? Anyone that supports the "right" of those people to be here, to be welfare voters, to further erode liberty, is no ally of liberty. They are a fraud and a traitor, worthy of the highest degree of scorn and ridicule.




> Sure, they shouldn't get welfare (neither should whites). Priveleges of full citizenship should be regulated. But the alt-right chestnuts about immigrants (taking our jobs, voting for socialism, lowering our wages) all amount to restricting liberty for the sake of liberty. That will never cause prosperity, let alone peace.


Peace and prosperity do not come about by allowing the world to move to your neighborhood, especially when it is known some most definitely do not have _your_ liberty in mind. That's not peace and prosperity, that's an invasion. How many times has history demonstrated the folly of it?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Again, disconnect. If you must assign the designation of "human trash" to someone, it would be more appropriately applied to people who don't have the immense willpower it takes to pull up roots and emigrate for the sake of a better life for themselves and/or their families.
> 
> Just by stepping across the border, they've demonstrated fundamental personal strength, and an impulse to progress that is harder to detect among multi-generational Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you'll read the rest of my post you briefly quoted. One can also use what you call "the left's own words" to depict a body of people who are hard-working, libertarian leaning, and far less indoctrinated than WASPs.  Here's a link back so you don't have to work too hard.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6418701
> ...


And they still vote for Marxism, you can not explain away this fact so you deny it.




> The second paragraph of the Declaration establishes equality of rights among _all men as the #1 reason that America must exist as a nation. It is compassion itself and leaves no room for your conception of human garbage. A libertarian can be (perhaps should be, but almost never is) more openly, demonstrably, flagrantly compassionate, inclusive, loving to all of humanity than any other political inclination.
> 
> Regardless of all that lovey dovey nonsense, virtually every classical liberal theorist upon whose work libertarian thought stands has established that freedom of the movement of goods and people is fundamental to economic prosperity. 
> 
> Sure, they shouldn't get welfare (neither should whites). Priveleges of full citizenship should be regulated. But the alt-right chestnuts about immigrants (taking our jobs, voting for socialism, lowering our wages) all amount to restricting liberty for the sake of liberty. That will never cause prosperity, let alone peace._*
> *


*
*
America had the highest rates of wage growth between 1924-1970.....That is proof alone why you are wrong..










Its about keeping out groups who will be the end result of their actions destroy or harm our rights, wealth, and the means in which they were produced and are sustained (Nation, culture, and people) You can not even accept the fact of how they vote, had the 1965 Immigration Act not been pasted we would not have 65 million people added to the nation who among many problems they created or exacerbated was voting for the same failed ideas they supported back home...

You wish to give your/our enemies the means to destroy us and everything you claim to value, but WE are the bad guys for not joining you in a "principled" suicide pact?

Please keep talking, you drive more and more people into our arms..

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Dr. Paul is already with me. 
> 
> https://mises.org/blog/ron-paul-sums...ws-immigration





> \\


And the man is wrong.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Your version of a libertarian is the useful idiot for any group of people who would violate your rights. Compassion that is self-destructive is tantamount to idiocy.
> 
> Compassion is best reserved for those that will not do you harm and only those that will do you no harm.
> 
> There is an argument to be made for inviting immigrants of a libertarian bent. Those seeking liberty, not just the economic opportunity associated with the USA. As for those that would join the welfare voters? Anyone that supports the "right" of those people to be here, to be welfare voters, to further erode liberty, is no ally of liberty. They are a fraud and a traitor, worthy of the highest degree of scorn and ridicule.
> 
> 
> 
> Peace and prosperity do not come about by allowing the world to move to your neighborhood, especially when it is known some most definitely do not have _your_ liberty in mind. That's not peace and prosperity, that's an invasion. How many times has history demonstrated the folly of it?


He and those like him do not care, they would rather believe the lie that we are all interchangeable cogs, all valuing the same things, have a view that views all of humanity in the same collective view (statism writ global), they would rather have Liberty, and the people who created and value it wiped from the face of the other, their history erased then be called names by people who hate them.

They do not have learn, only lose..and they have, 40 years and they have not won ONE election. The Alt right gets hate because we do not care about non sense, only winning elections, making and protecting gains, our people/culture and Liberty itself. 

WE do not care about indifferent or hostile groups nor should. They hate us? We do not care, they can hate us from afar. Liberty does not apply to our enemies or people who do not value it, why should it? More over why should we waste time and effort trying to force things on people who either do not value them or use our values against us?

Letting in tens of millions of people who have lower IQs, vote overwhelming against us and becoming a 3rd world failed police state or Living in a free, wealthy secure nation as the 3rd world falls apart? Its not hard which one we are going to pick and other groups get in the way? "physically remove" them.

----------


## undergroundrr

> All men are NOT created equal.


What is it you like about America again? To you, it just seems to be a parcel of land you're hoping to forcefully cleanse of those you find deplorable, with you (or trump or Bannon or Milo or Steph?) as the Chief of the Thought Police.




> Your version of a libertarian is the useful idiot for any group of people who would violate your rights.


What you depict as libertarianism entails the elimination of property rights, free markets and the first amendment. Your battle cry begs a different label.




> Compassion is best reserved for those that will not do you harm and only those that will do you no harm.


Well, FWIW, I have compassion for you. That level of resentment has to be painful. Yet your calls for restriction of my liberty (and yours) would indeed harm me.




> And they still vote for Marxism, you can not explain away this fact so you deny it.


I don't deny your statistics. And you didn't deny the ones I put forth. And I would add that anyone who voted for trump voted valiantly for Marxism.

BTW, I think the 4chan files you linked can only be accessed if you're logged in. Sorry, I don't have an account. There are others more astute at economic history than me. But when I think of that stretch of years, I think of the New Deal, war profiteering and the destruction of commodity-backed currency through inflationary spending. 




> Please keep talking, you drive more and more people into our arms..


LOL. I'm here to shoot the breeze talking politics on a vBulletin. You're under the impression that your calling mighty masses to action?




> <speaking of Ron Paul on free markets> And the man is wrong.


What is it you like about Ron Paul again?




> "physically remove" them.


Again, if you consider this libertarianism, then you belong to a truly different "culture" than that of Mises, Bastiat, LeFevre, Rand, Jefferson, Ron Paul. I guess you can still call it a conservative position, but one that is at odds with libertarianism. As I've pointed out, it's also identical to that of Marx.

Have a great Monday you two. I'm enjoying our discussions.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> What is it you like about America again? To you, it just seems to be a parcel of land you're hoping to forcefully cleanse of those you find deplorable, with you (or trump or Bannon or Milo or Steph?) as the Chief of the Thought Police.


Rule of law
Property rights
Stable court/legal system (well use to be)
Personal freedom
Gun rights
Anglo Saxon Protestant cultural mores


All mean are not created equal, the idea behind that was men are born subject to natural law, nothing more. More over it is not in the Constitution so its moot at best.





> What you depict as libertarianism entails the elimination of property rights, free markets and the first amendment. Your battle cry begs a different label.


Funny, isnt that what the immigrants largely vote for again? So tell us how letting in tens of millions of enemy voters is not going to do more harm then just keeping them out.







> Well, FWIW, I have compassion for you. That level of resentment has to be painful. Yet your calls for restriction of my liberty (and yours) would indeed harm me.


So its wrong to resent people who hate you, your culture, and vote to destroy? 

How would it harm you to limit immigration?

Why are my facts that mass immigration harms me not more valid then your claims?






> I don't deny your statistics. And you didn't deny the ones I put forth. And I would add that anyone who voted for trump voted valiantly for Marxism.
> 
> BTW, I think the 4chan files you linked can only be accessed if you're logged in. Sorry, I don't have an account. There are others more astute at economic history than me. But when I think of that stretch of years, I think of the New Deal, war profiteering and the destruction of commodity-backed currency through inflationary spending.


So you can not deny facts, you just can not defend against them...Shocking. Screaming 'statist or "marxist", funny how you assume the view points, and tactics of the left but deny you carry water from the left..








> LOL. I'm here to shoot the breeze talking politics on a vBulletin. You're under the impression that your calling mighty masses to action?


No, your actions and failures push more people to our side. But you clearly not able to understand this




> What is it you like about Ron Paul again?


Its about immigration, not free markets.




So you are wrong that you have to have mass immigration/open borders for a free market.








> Again, if you consider this libertarianism, then you belong to a truly different "culture" than that of Mises, Bastiat, LeFevre, Rand, Jefferson, Ron Paul. I guess you can still call it a conservative position, but one that is at odds with libertarianism. As I've pointed out, it's also identical to that of Marx.
> 
> Have a great Monday you two. I'm enjoying our discussions.


Not true all of these men supported the idea of of self defense, which is what Psychical removal is.

----------


## undergroundrr

> So you are wrong that you have to have mass immigration/open borders for a free market.


I agree with everything in Dr. Hoppe's quote except the first sentence. And I can even agree with it if the stipulation is that the immigration or segregation policy is implemented by agreement of a body of people bunkered on their own justly acquired private property. 

But for Dr. Hoppe to say that I can't have a Chinese man on my property because I live next door to you would be antithetical to even the most dissolute concept of property rights. To kick a Chinese man off of his own justly obtained property means that the property right never existed. 

A government-forced immigration policy that prevents my ability to give the Chinese man of my choice, traveling from China as a non-American citizen, access to my property, so that I may have any interaction, commercial or otherwise to which we consent, is protectionism and a market restriction. 

Of course you would never be forced to have a Chinese man on your property in a free society. That's your reciprocal benefit. And you might even be able to get your HOA to stretch the jurisdiction a little without violating the property rights of me, Chinese-lover. 




> Not true all of these men supported the idea of of self defense, which is what Psychical removal is.


Physical removal from where? My property? Your impulse to exclude my free access to invite sectors of humanity onto my property on ideological grounds, even if it were valid, would require an immense police state apparatus (well, that's already here) and total elimination of real property rights (also kindly granted to you by generations of Republicrats). So I guess you already have what you need, but not thanks to a regime that reflects the principles of libertarianism.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I agree with everything in Dr. Hoppe's quote except the first sentence. And I can even agree with it if the stipulation is that the immigration or segregation policy is implemented by agreement of a body of people bunkered on their own justly acquired private property. 
> 
> But for Dr. Hoppe to say that I can't have a Chinese man on my property because I live next door to you would be antithetical to even the most dissolute concept of property rights. To kick a Chinese man off of his own justly obtained property means that the property right never existed. 
> 
> A government-forced immigration policy that prevents my ability to give the Chinese man of my choice, traveling from China as a non-American citizen, access to my property, so that I may have any interaction, commercial or otherwise to which we consent, is protectionism and a market restriction. 
> 
> Of course you would never be forced to have a Chinese man on your property in a free society. That's your reciprocal benefit. And you might even be able to get your HOA to stretch the jurisdiction a little without violating the property rights of me, Chinese-lover. 
> 
> 
> ...


And what about millions of them that vote over whelming for the anti property rights party?

Removed to where they belong, in their own nations, where they have their cultures and political ideals in practice.

And allowing in millions of 3rd worlds have not given a need for a massive police state/spy state? Why did we not have a Patriot Act BEFORE 9/11? It had nothing to do with mass immigration of Islamic hordes who bring with them Jihad where ever they go?

You have elimination of real property rights in areas of high immigration thanks to them voting for more "free" stuff, which means higher property taxes, regulations, etc.

----------


## undergroundrr

> And allowing in millions of 3rd worlds have not given a need for a massive police state/spy state? Why did we not have a Patriot Act BEFORE 9/11? It had nothing to do with mass immigration of Islamic hordes who bring with them Jihad where ever they go?


You got here a little late so you may have missed this:




"They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there."

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> You got here a little late so you may have missed this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there."


I disagree. Extreme muslims attack any country where the people are dumb enough to let them in. Also, no offense to the RP supporters here, but RP is kinda a loser. He lost the presidential primaries more than 3 times to more practical people. He lost for a reason, not because the media wouldn't give him a fair shake. Americans rejected his foreign policy ideas because they were not right.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> What you depict as libertarianism entails the elimination of property rights, free markets and the first amendment. Your battle cry begs a different label.


Libertarianism will not win without the subversion of its enemies. They are real people with beliefs specifically designed to violate your rights in the furtherance of their ambitions. Unsurprisingly, giving said enemies _carte blanche_ to do as they please is not a solution for liberty. They must be checked at every turn.




> Well, FWIW, I have compassion for you. That level of resentment has to be painful. Yet your calls for restriction of my liberty (and yours) would indeed harm me.


I resent anyone intent on the further, or sustained, erosion of my liberty. If you have compassion for those that would violate your rights you are only deserving of scorn and ridicule.

----------


## undergroundrr

> I disagree. Extreme muslims attack any country where the people are dumb enough to let them in. Also, no offense to the RP supporters here, but RP is kinda a loser. He lost the presidential primaries more than 3 times to more practical people. He lost for a reason, not because the media wouldn't give him a fair shake. Americans rejected his foreign policy ideas because they were not right.


I detect tension between your handle, avatar and comment.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Libertarianism will not win without the subversion of its enemies.


Yes, those are called authoritarians.




> I resent anyone intent on the further, or sustained, erosion of my liberty.


Then you have a perfect recipe for self-loathing.

----------


## otherone

> I resent anyone intent on the further, or sustained, erosion of my liberty. If you have compassion for _those that would_ violate your rights you are only deserving of scorn and ridicule.


Thoughtcrime must be stopped using any means possible.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Yes, those are called authoritarians.
> Then you have a perfect recipe for self-loathing.


No, I have a recipe for resenting people intent on furthering the erosion of my liberties by bringing in more people that will do exactly that.

That would be you, should you persist in your open borders nonsense.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Thoughtcrime must be stopped using any means possible.


Absolutely. It'd save everyone from reading your posts.

----------


## TheTexan

Just because they discriminate against and feel superior to Mexicans, it doesn't mean they are racist

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> I detect tension between your handle, avatar and comment.


lol. I fervently supported Dr. Paul in 2008. However, I started to disagree with some of his philosophy. He isn't tough enough on immigrants and his foreign policy seems to be a little naïve with respect to Islam and Muslims.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Just because they discriminate against and feel superior to Mexicans, it doesn't mean they are racist


That's a farce. Discrimination against Mexicans, yes, partly, but it has nothing to do with having superior feelings.

----------


## otherone

> Absolutely. It'd save everyone from reading your posts.


SNAP!
Loving your plan to destroy liberty _before_ the foreigners _might_.
Kinda like a "scorched earth" gambit.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> They do not have learn, only lose..and they have, 40 years and they have not won ONE election. The Alt right gets hate because we do not care about non sense, only winning elections, making and protecting gains, our people/culture and Liberty itself.


We are despised because we don't suck up to minorities like everyone else does. That's my theory.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> SNAP!
> Loving your plan to destroy liberty _before_ the foreigners _might_.
> Kinda like a "scorched earth" gambit.


Preventing the liberal foreigners from coming here is our only chance.

----------


## otherone

> Preventing the liberal foreigners from coming here is our only chance.


Why are you letting them vote?

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Why are you letting them vote?


All citizens have a right to vote.

----------


## otherone

> All citizens have a right to vote.


Voting is a privilege of citizenship.  Why are you giving them citizenship?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> No, I have a recipe for resenting people intent on furthering the erosion of my liberties by bringing in more people that will do exactly that.
> 
> That would be you, should you persist in your open borders nonsense.




They have lost the argument now they are joining their leftist "friends" to stop us from restoring sanity.





> Just because they discriminate against and feel superior to Mexicans, it doesn't mean they are racist



It has nothing to do with America being a better nation? Right? Its not like we in the roughly the same span of time went to the moon and their greatest feat was invading a nation far superior then anything they could have ever dream of building, right?




> SNAP!
> Loving your plan to destroy liberty _before_ the foreigners _might_.
> Kinda like a "scorched earth" gambit.


Its not like Foreigners destroy our Liberty by voting for marxism, right?




> We are despised because we don't suck up to minorities like everyone else does. That's my theory.


Or maybe we are just not afraid of being hated by people who will always hate us.....They can hate us from Afar, from across the border and beyond the sea, and in the coming years very soon hate us from across the uncrossable void of space. Their lack of IQ will be the chain that grounds them to their planet, never again to follow and hold us down.




> Preventing the liberal foreigners from coming here is our only chance.


They can not understand that if you keep them out they can not vote against you.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> You got here a little late so you may have missed this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there."


Then lets not go there and NOT ALLOW THEM HERE!

----------


## otherone

> Its not like Foreigners destroy our Liberty by voting for marxism, right?


Why are we letting them vote?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Voting is a privilege of citizenship.  Why are you giving them citizenship?


Because morons on the left lost the battle of ideas and resulted to stacking the deck with every low IQed savage culture who will blindly for more "free" stuff offered to them.

That is the whole point of the 1965 Immigration, "elect a new people".

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Voting is a privilege of citizenship.  Why are you giving them citizenship?


I'm not. The insane left is. Its not my immigration policy. 





> Or maybe we are just not afraid of being hated by people who will always hate us.....They can hate us from Afar, from across the border and beyond the sea, and in the coming years very soon hate us from across the uncrossable void of space. Their lack of IQ will be the chain that grounds them to their planet, never again to follow and hold us down.


I think people are afraid of another Hitler coming to power or they believe the leftist narrative that the minorities are helpless victims. 




> They can not understand that if you keep them out they can not vote against you.


Its pretty simple to me.

----------


## otherone

> Because morons on the left lost the battle of ideas and resulted to stacking the deck with every low IQed savage culture who will blindly for more "free" stuff offered to them.
> 
> That is the whole point of the 1965 Immigration, "elect a new people".


Your argument is against naturalization, not immigration.

----------


## otherone

> I'm not. The insane left is. Its not my immigration policy. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think people are afraid of another Hitler coming to power or they believe the leftist narrative that the minorities are helpless victims. 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple to me.


You don't have a grasp of what "open-border" libertarianism is about.  "immigration" and "naturalization" are two different issues.  Citizenship and voting are not natural rights.  The 14th amendment is an abomination.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> You don't have a grasp of what "open-border" libertarianism is about.


You're right I don't. Want to explain it to me in a nutshell?




> "immigration" and "naturalization" are two different issues.  Citizenship and voting are not natural rights.  The 14th amendment is an abomination.


I see. 

I agree with having immigrants, maybe even some non-white whites but I don't agree with granting them citizenship. I could even support a guest worker program with no citizenship for Mexicans if it was proven we really need them. However, my difference of opinion with the libertarian leftists is that libertarians tend not to give a damn about race, culture, upholding the nation and sharing commonalities with each other.

----------


## otherone

> You're right I don't. Want to explain it to me in a nutshell?
> 
> 
> 
> I see. 
> 
> I agree with having immigrants, maybe even some non-white whites but I don't agree with granting them citizenship. I could even support a guest worker program with no citizenship for Mexicans if it was proven we really need them. However, my difference of opinion with the libertarian leftists is that libertarians tend not to give a damn about race, culture, upholding the nation and sharing commonalities with each other.


In a nutshell, the _free_ market decides. IRT to "upholding" culture, etal, whose?  Mine or yours?

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> In a nutshell, the _free_ market decides.


There should be limited regulation of the free market, unless you want unscrupulous people plundering the environment or screwing their workers over for personal gain. 




> IRT to "upholding" culture, etal, whose?  Mine or yours?


Ours.

----------


## tod evans

> In a nutshell, the _free_ market decides.* IRT to "upholding" culture, etal, whose?  Mine or yours?*


Anything but government mandated diversity.

I'm good with feudal warlords instead of the PC police..

----------


## otherone

> There should be limited regulation of the free market, unless you want unscrupulous people plundering the environment or screwing their workers over for personal gain.


The free market resolves both issues.  If you can be more specific, we can discuss this. Pragmatically, regulation should be left to the states, not the federal government. 






> Ours.


You don't know me. I could be praying to a head of lettuce and raising chickens in my bathtub right now.  What people do in Alabama, Alaska, or on my neighbor's property is not my right to decide.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I'm not. The insane left is. Its not my immigration policy. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think people are afraid of another Hitler coming to power or they believe the leftist narrative that the minorities are helpless victims. 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple to me.



To the left anyone who disagrees or stands against them is "literary Hitler", they just want to import enough low IQ welfare voters to insure Americans can not restore their nation, nothing more..




> Your argument is against naturalization, not immigration.





> You don't have a grasp of what "open-border" libertarianism is about.  "immigration" and "naturalization" are two different issues.  Citizenship and voting are not natural rights.  The 14th amendment is an abomination.


You fail to understand, if we do not allow them in, we never have to worry about many issues, welfare, crime, wages, but also naturalization.

----------


## TheTexan

> Voting is a privilege of citizenship.  Why are you giving them citizenship?


A privilege, and an honor

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> The free market resolves both issues.  If you can be more specific, we can discuss this.


How should I be more specific? What I explained was pretty simple and straightforward, so I thought.  




> Pragmatically, regulation should be left to the states, not the federal government.


Sounds good. That is fine with me. 




> You don't know me. I could be praying to a head of lettuce and raising chickens in my bathtub right now.


You are free to do whatever you wish as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. 




> What people do in Alabama, Alaska, or on my neighbor's property is not my right to decide.


While I agree this is true on 99.9 percent of things, I think we have a *shock* collective right to decide what kind of country we want and who gets to come here with respect to immigrants and immigration.

----------


## undergroundrr

> You fail to understand, if we do not allow them in, we never have to worry about many issues, welfare, crime, wages, but also naturalization.


and liberty!

The fact is welfare, crime and wages will continue to be problems and will escalate logarithmically in your closed, mercantilist market. You're prescribing the death of America by making it the opposite of what made it successful. I know, Fourth Turning. It'll be great.

The hysteria about importing hordes to "vote against you" is just so absurd. Anybody who voted Republican for president voted against our liberties in 2016 just as badly as Democrats.

But alas, your vote counts for nothing. Immigrants' votes count for nothing. You're diverting, or have been diverted from the real problem. The influence of education and media indoctrination is orders of magnitude out of proportion to any Soros-coordinated (or whatever) effort to physically stack a voting block. There will be fraud and fake votes every election, but they're a drop in the bucket compared to what can be gained by coercive manipulation of the flimsy, pliable will of the average white American voter.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Not true all of these men supported the idea of of self defense, which is what Psychical removal is.


I just ran across this. Don't know if you're a fan, but it applies to what we're discussing. 

"No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what youre suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living  which isnt true, though if it were true, youd still have no right to close the borders. Youre not entitled to any self-interest that injures others, especially when you cant prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You cant claim that anything others may do  for example, simply through competition  is against your self-interest. But above all, arent you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldnt be alive today if our borders had been closed?" - Ayn Rand, Ford Hall Address Q&A, 1973

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> and liberty!
> 
> The fact is welfare, crime and wages will continue to be problems and will escalate logarithmically in your closed, mercantilist market. You're prescribing the death of America by making it the opposite of what made it successful. I know, Fourth Turning. It'll be great.
> 
> The hysteria about importing hordes to "vote against you" is just so absurd. Anybody who voted Republican for president voted against our liberties in 2016 just as badly as Democrats.
> 
> But alas, your vote counts for nothing. Immigrants' votes count for nothing. You're diverting, or have been diverted from the real problem. The influence of education and media indoctrination is orders of magnitude out of proportion to any Soros-coordinated (or whatever) effort to physically stack a voting block. There will be fraud and fake votes every election, but they're a drop in the bucket compared to what can be gained by coercive manipulation of the flimsy, pliable will of the average white American voter.


Those problmes would be lessened. Immigration never really made America great, get over it.

No, its not absurd you are bring in people who are going to vote against our rights, that alone is reason NOT to bring them in but you are so blind to this fact you clearly are beyond reach..

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I just ran across this. Don't know if you're a fan, but it applies to what we're discussing. 
> 
> "No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed?" - Ayn Rand, Ford Hall Address Q&A, 1973


Ayn was wrong. My God. I know its hard for you to understand that people living in another time, did not/could not understand the effects of something taken to extremes. More over we have prove that mass immigration affects our self interest (crime, taxes, wages, cost of living, enemy voters, terrorism).

More over tell that to all those killed by immigrant criminals who had they been kept out would still be alive.

So Ayn Rand like Ron Paul is hopelessly wrong on immigration. Its funny how you bash others for blindly following people, obeying their words as the word of God, but you autistic would follow them book and verse past the gates of hell because "muh principles"

----------


## undergroundrr

> My God. I know its hard for you to understand that people living in another time, did not/could not understand the effects of something taken to extremes.


"'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded." - F.A. Hayek




> So Ayn Rand like Ron Paul is hopelessly wrong on immigration.


Am I right that you see immigration as the most important issue endangering America? That it's urgent that government use force to correct it? If so, why beat your head against the wall here? There are plenty of right- (and many left-) wing websites that would welcome your arguments with open arms. I guess I'm just different, but it would just never occur to me to go to John Bolton Forums to lobby for a non-interventionist foreign policy.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> "'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded." - F.A. Hayek
> 
> 
> 
> Am I right that you see immigration as the most important issue endangering America? That it's urgent that government use force to correct it? If so, why beat your head against the wall here? There are plenty of right- (and many left-) wing websites that would welcome your arguments with open arms. I guess I'm just different, but it would just never occur to me to go to John Bolton Forums to lobby for a non-interventionist foreign policy.


But allowing in millions of people who will vote away your rights is not a threat at all?

The job of the state is to protect the nation from invasion, they are failing their job, while morons like you standing in an autistic stupor and talk about none sense while the nation becomes a Latin Slum.

----------


## undergroundrr

> But allowing in millions of people who will vote away your rights is not a threat at all?


No, I don't feel threatened by anyone's vote. Maybe you didn't quite catch the last two paragraphs of this post.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> But allowing in millions of people who will vote away your rights is not a threat at all?
> 
> The job of the state is to protect the nation from invasion, they are failing their job, while morons like you standing in an autistic stupor and talk about none sense while the nation becomes a Latin Slum.


You do realize that immigration from Mexico is declining, right?

Most white people voted to take away rights, too.  Interestingly, the last President to govern as a free market capitalist defender of personal liberty was supported by people of all races.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> No, I don't feel threatened by anyone's vote. Maybe you didn't quite catch the last two paragraphs of this post.


Then you are fool, plain as day you are a fool. You do not care about people voting away your rights and wealth if you did care about those things you would stop those coming here who vote against them from doing so.





> You do realize that immigration from Mexico is declining, right?
> 
> Most white people voted to take away rights, too.  Interestingly, the last President to govern as a free market capitalist defender of personal liberty was supported by people of all races.


You do understand that people are coming *Through* Mexico, right?

Odd how you think allowing more people who will vote against you will do anything but make things worst..Also Coolidge signed the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 and the market was free...

Funny how those too posts prove you are liar.

----------


## timosman

> You do understand that people are coming *Through* Mexico, right?


Oh, they do? Really I did not know. 

Cubans entering through Mexico are legal instantly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_feet,_dry_feet_policy

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> You do understand that people are coming *Through* Mexico, right?
> 
> Odd how you think allowing more people who will vote against you will do anything but make things worst..Also Coolidge signed the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 and the market was free...
> 
> Funny how those too posts prove you are liar.


People have been coming through Mexico for quite some time, but my point stands, it is decreasing.

IIRC Coolidge just signed what Congress passed and he didn't care much for restricting immigration.  If the alt-right was around back then they would have supported a primary challenge against him.  He appealed to Irish and Italian immigrants in order to get elected in Massachusetts.  When he was elected President, he argued in favor of racial equality, and was probably one of the last Republicans to win the black vote.  He also expanded voting rights to native Americans.  Sounds like the typical "cuckservative" to me.

Note that his successor did not do this, and we all know how that ended for the GOP.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> People have been coming through Mexico for quite some time, but my point stands, it is decreasing.
> 
> IIRC Coolidge just signed what Congress passed and he didn't care much for restricting immigration.  If the alt-right was around back then they would have supported a primary challenge against him.  He appealed to Irish and Italian immigrants in order to get elected in Massachusetts.  When he was elected President, he argued in favor of racial equality, and was probably one of the last Republicans to win the black vote.  He also expanded voting rights to native Americans.  Sounds like the typical "cuckservative" to me.
> 
> Note that his successor did not do this, and we all know how that ended for the GOP.


Clearly wrong, you are just changing your claims...

So very wrong, he was in favor of it for a long time, google is a great tool.

http://www.azquotes.com/author/3231-...ag/immigration

Now we have Trump, now we have the Internet, now we are going to Restrict like 1924!

This time their will be no 1965 Immigration Act...

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Clearly wrong, you are just changing your claims...
> 
> So very wrong, he was in favor of it for a long time, google is a great tool.
> 
> http://www.azquotes.com/author/3231-...ag/immigration
> 
> Now we have Trump, now we have the Internet, now we are going to Restrict like 1924!
> 
> This time their will be no 1965 Immigration Act...


He was actually hesitant to sign the law.

The right-wing in both the US and Europe is becoming increasingly hostile to liberty, they are becoming like the left but marketed to a different demographic.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> People have been coming through Mexico for quite some time, but my point stands, it is decreasing.
> 
> IIRC Coolidge just signed what Congress passed and he didn't care much for restricting immigration.  If the alt-right was around back then they would have supported a primary challenge against him.  He appealed to Irish and Italian immigrants in order to get elected in Massachusetts.  When he was elected President, he argued in favor of racial equality, and was probably one of the last Republicans to win the black vote.  He also expanded voting rights to native Americans.  Sounds like the typical "cuckservative" to me.


Not completely. The 1924 immigration act was passed by white supremacists in congress. 

I don't understand why liberals and "cuckservatives" are so interested in taking care of immigrants rather than their own people.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> I just ran across this. Don't know if you're a fan, but it applies to what we're discussing. 
> 
> "No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed?" - Ayn Rand, Ford Hall Address Q&A, 1973


This quote from Mrs. Rand shows she is a female cuck. Shes lying too. If immigration doesn't lower the standard of living, then why have wages not increased since 1999?


Also why are you honoring a communist like MLK in your avatar? I suppose commie preachers F'ing prostitutes is okay with you?

----------


## timosman

> Not completely. The 1924 immigration act was passed by white supremacists in congress. 
> 
> I don't understand why liberals and "cuckservatives" are so interested in taking care of immigrants rather than their own people.


This creepy preoccupation with minorities is disturbing.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> This creepy preoccupation with minorities is disturbing.


 The liberal and cuckservative preoccupation with diversity and multiculturalism is disturbing, don't you think?

----------


## timosman

> The liberal and cuckservative preoccupation with diversity and multiculturalism is disturbing, don't you think?


Objection! Leading the witness.

----------


## otherone

> This creepy preoccupation with minorities is disturbing.


The liberals'? Or the alt-rights'?  Both groups are obsessed with identity politics.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> The liberal and cuckservative preoccupation with diversity and multiculturalism is disturbing, don't you think?


Cuckservative isn't a real thing.  And I've never really noticed anyone here obsessed with diversity besides the alt-rightists.

----------


## undergroundrr

> And I've never really noticed anyone here obsessed with diversity besides the alt-rightists.


Absolutely. To put it more simply, when encountering another human, some people look for commonalities, some people look for differences.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> He was actually hesitant to sign the law.
> 
> The right-wing in both the US and Europe is becoming increasingly hostile to liberty, they are becoming like the left but marketed to a different demographic.


What shameless dishonesty. I don't know what I despise more about conservatives, their fecklessness or their smug, shameless, self-righteous dishonesty. Tactics are not politics are not objectives are not ideals; just as the US Marines did not become the Wehrmacht by adopting maneuver warfare, the Alt-Right will not become SJWs due to the effective use of rhetoric and going on the offensive. The fact that the ends _may or may not justify the means does not mean that the ends are the means.
_



> Not completely. The 1924 immigration act was passed by white supremacists in congress. 
> 
> I don't understand why liberals and "cuckservatives" are so interested in taking care of immigrants rather than their own people.


Because they truly think all people are interchangeable. That "America is not a nation, or people, but "an Idea"". You can replace the entire population of America with Somalia and everything keeps chugging along, NOTHING will change..

Well we are done with this madness, we are going to put our self interests ahead of others and if leftists and cucks insist on nihilistic lunacy and societal suicide that punishes us for your stupidity, then we will do what is necessary to protect ourselves and our way of life.And make no mistake about it, we will win, like we always have, by any means necessary.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> The liberals'? Or the alt-rights'?  Both groups are obsessed with identity politics.



I did not know self interests and protection of the in group is a bad thing.




> Cuckservative isn't a real thing.  And I've never really noticed anyone here obsessed with diversity besides the alt-rightists.


No, it is and it is lossing badly.

Really? You have not noticed the left pushing "divesrtiy" into everything, from immigration law, to housing, to remaking entire movies with non white casts?...Really?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> He was actually hesitant to sign the law.
> 
> The right-wing in both the US and Europe is becoming increasingly hostile to liberty, they are becoming like the left but marketed to a different demographic.


And he understood more Liberty would be lost if it was not signed...So he put his "muh feels" aside and secured the nation.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I enjoys these conversations, too, undergroundrr, and hope I haven't killed this one by being slow in reply. 




> the designation of "human trash" to someone


 You're so hung up on my un-PC terms, it's totally addled and distracted you from substance. Call the plan whatever you wish! It can be the Remake America Plan or the Open the Floodgates in Love to Absolutely All Our Brothers and Sisters Plan instead of the Dumping Ground Plan. Who cares?  Whatever. The point is: how is this brilliant plan going to defeat Marxism?  The Syrians and Mexicans don't seem to have defeated Marxism in Syria and Mexico; why would we expect them to do so here?  Would their mass-migration really change anything, much less be a threat to your powerful Demi-God, Dr. Marx?

But if you were going to answer that, you would have already done so. I understand and appreciate you have chosen to shift away from and avoid any debate with me and instead are going for just chatting and discussion.  So, in that spirit let me say I do not particularly disagree with many of your points, and I think that you are right that morally speaking, we cannot violate property rights to solve a problem, even one as serious as mass invasion changing the entire character and demographics of a nation. We can't violate property rights ever. Period. 

To this I would add that government doesn't work, and that skepticism toward government solutions and government actions is always warranted. 

As I have said before, my own thoughts on immigration are complex and complicated. What is the right answer for libertarians? It's not nearly as simple (simplistic) as you make it out to be. And despite your claims to ownership of the mantle of Dr. Paul (Mine! Mine! Mine!  I'm the Paul-y-est!), actually Dr. Paul's views are probably closer to the ambiguity and conflictedness that I am feeling and expressing here than anything. I hear Dr. Paul saying that he (like me) has not yet found anyone with the wisdom of Solomon on this issue. 

Because that's what he said. 

In Liberty Defined. 

By the way, I have "stepped across" many borders -- does that mean I, too, am super-amazingly awesome and pro-active and entrepreneurial in your eyes?  Or does your disgust for my other characteristic -- being an American -- override that and put me still firmly in the camp of deplorable people whom you hate?  Just wondering!  All the best.




> I hope you'll read the rest of my post you briefly quoted


 Oh, now you're going to be like that, huh?  SO polite and civil (and loving!!)... until you're not. What happened to good faith, huh? Condescension doesn't work unless you're actually smarter than the other guy, underground, preferably significantly. Why don't you go play with RoL; you seem to enjoy that so much.  Rare indeed would I reply to a post I have not read completely.  For that (actually for my time) I'm not responding to anything else in your post. Go ahead and whine about how maybe I didn't read it. How dare I not ponder every profound sentence and reply to every single line expressing my awe at your insights.

----------


## undergroundrr

> your disgust for my other characteristic -- being an American


LOL. I do love it when you bloviate. But this is just too much. LOL

It's not a zero-sum game you know. One's love for "others" might not preclude loving an American. And yes, I enjoy bouncing around ideas with you, RoL and all the others on this vBulletin. You do enrich my life just that bit.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> One's love for "others" might not preclude loving an American.


 Excellent!  THANK YOU for following the script!  I do know you. 

Just so: *Not happening to want non-Americans to come live in America just might not preclude one from loving them.*

Eh?

Eh?

Agreed?

----------


## undergroundrr

> Just so: *Not happening to want non-Americans to come live in America just might not preclude one from loving them.*


I think you've invented a sixth love language!  You could make a ton on the self-help circuit.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I think you've invented a sixth love language!  You could make a ton on the self-help circuit.


 Ha!!

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Ha!!



https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=0

The wall is coming.....We are winning.

----------


## tod evans

> https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=0
> 
> The wall is coming.....We are winning.


From your link;




> Place of Performance:
> To Be Determined


So in reality your government is going to accept bids on a job with no specifications or location....

This is called gerrymandering not winning.

How much money have you specifically, and the we you speak of so exuberantly, given to a contractor to start work? 

If you haven't forked over a deposit or volunteered your labor then you haven't done $#@! to keep out the evil Messicans and are bleating again.

You're not winning anything boy but you sure can make yourself look foolish...

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> From your link;
> 
> 
> 
> So in reality your government is going to accept bids on a job with no specifications or location....
> 
> This is called gerrymandering not winning.
> 
> How much money have you specifically, and the we you speak of so exuberantly, given to a contractor to start work? 
> ...


I have done more then you. 

Muh NAP....

----------


## tod evans

> I have done more then you. 
> 
> Muh NAP....


Maybe you could find me talking about the NAP?

G-head and try, I'll wait.

Bunch of hot air, low IQ air at that...

----------


## pcosmar

> I have done more then you.


Ah,

a legend in your own mind.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Ah,
> 
> a legend in your own mind.


Yeah,voting for open border/mass immigrationist hacks who had no chance of winning must be a great thing.

----------


## Origanalist

> This quote from Mrs. Rand shows she is a female cuck. Shes lying too. If immigration doesn't lower the standard of living, then why have wages not increased since 1999?
> 
> 
> Also why are you honoring a communist like MLK in your avatar? I suppose commie preachers F'ing prostitutes is okay with you?


Is 1999 the year we started getting immigrants?

----------


## Origanalist

> https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=0
> 
> The wall is coming.....We are winning.


Do we get a ribbon? 'Cause I like ribbons.

----------


## Origanalist

> What shameless dishonesty. I don't know what I despise more about conservatives, their fecklessness or their smug, shameless, self-righteous dishonesty. Tactics are not politics are not objectives are not ideals; just as the US Marines did not become the Wehrmacht by adopting maneuver warfare, the Alt-Right will not become SJWs due to the effective use of rhetoric and going on the offensive. The fact that the ends _may or may not justify the means does not mean that the ends are the means.
> _
> 
> 
> Because they truly think all people are interchangeable. That "America is not a nation, or people, but "an Idea"". You can replace the entire population of America with Somalia and everything keeps chugging along, NOTHING will change..
> 
> Well we are done with this madness, we are going to put our self interests ahead of others and if leftists and cucks insist on nihilistic lunacy and societal suicide that punishes us for your stupidity, then we will do what is necessary to protect ourselves and our way of life.And make no mistake about it, we will win, like we always have, by any means necessary.


Cool blue letters. I need to try that.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Do we get a ribbon? 'Cause I like ribbons.


No, only with Snowflakes does everybody get a trophy.

----------


## otherone

> https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=0
> 
> The wall is coming.....We are winning.


congrats

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> congrats



Fake news.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> What shameless dishonesty. I don't know what I despise more about conservatives, their fecklessness or their smug, shameless, self-righteous dishonesty. Tactics are not politics are not objectives are not ideals; just as the US Marines did not become the Wehrmacht by adopting maneuver warfare, the Alt-Right will not become SJWs due to the effective use of rhetoric and going on the offensive. The fact that the ends _may or may not justify the means does not mean that the ends are the means._


Where do Republicans and Democrats differ?  Not a whole lot.




> Really? You have not noticed the left pushing "divesrtiy" into everything, from immigration law, to housing, to remaking entire movies with non white casts?...Really?


I was talking about this forum specifically.




> And he understood more Liberty would be lost if it was not signed...So he put his "muh feels" aside and secured the nation.


Because it's not like the next decade would be terrible for liberty in America, right?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I think you've invented a sixth love language!  You could make a ton on the self-help circuit.


Is America the only good place?  Is living anywhere in the world else such a fate worse than death, consigning them to such a bleak and miserable existence, you wouldn't possibly ever do that to anyone unless you have hate in your heart?

7 billion people in America = Love

7 billion people living in their own countries, with their own culture, race, and kind = Hate!  Racism!  Evil!

I guess I don't get it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

@undergroundrr , did you even notice that I agreed with you, by the way?  You made no acknowledgement. I would think if one were friendily chatting, that would be an acknowledgement one would readily and happily make, with appreciation!

Sigh.

----------


## undergroundrr

> @undergroundrr , did you even notice that I agreed with you, by the way?  You made no acknowledgement. I would think if one were friendily chatting, that would be an acknowledgement one would readily and happily make, with appreciation!
> 
> Sigh.


We agree about almost everything.

----------


## undergroundrr

> 7 billion people living in their own countries, with their own culture, race, and kind = Hate!  Racism!  Evil!


Each individual's culture is what he chooses it to be. That's called free agency.

Their own race? Really? Did you get kicked out or something?

What is "their own country".  Generally even a wealthy individual doesn't own more than some quantity of acres.

Their own "kind?"  Mine are music-fixated introverts. Thank goodness I'm not consigned to a fixed space with them.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Yeah, I get it: no such thing as race, as culture, as loyalty to a country. That much I get. I understand you on that, even though I differ, strongly. 

Where I get lost is why it's so hateful/racist/evil in your mind -- and many many others on the left, it's not just you -- to have people distributed. To have Switzerland remain Swiss. Are the Swiss really committing hate crime and genocide by simply not inviting the population of the world to invade their country?  It seems like their prerogative. I mean, if the Swiss govt refused to let me enter, that would be unjust and unlibertarian, but it's hard for me to get too worked up about it. Those Swiss politicians have no right to do that, it's not their country, but it's not mine either! If 90% of the Swiss don't want me there, that's awfully close to the unanimous consent libertarianism would technically require.  Am I really being oppressed by simply not being given the privilege of entering their mountain refuge?  I don't think so.  It's not a big oppression. 

I just don't get it. 

Maybe you can explain it to me?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> We agree about almost everything.


 But did you notice I agreed with you *on immigration*?  And on your objections to its restriction by the Federal government?

----------


## otherone

> Yeah, I get it: no such thing as race, as culture, as loyalty to a country. That much I get. I understand you on that, even though I differ, strongly. 
> 
> Where I get lost is why it's so hateful/racist/evil in your mind -- and many many others on the left, it's not just you -- to have people distributed. To have Switzerland remain Swiss. Are the Swiss really committing hate crime and genocide by simply not inviting the population of the world to invade their country?  It seems like their prerogative. I mean, if the Swiss govt refused to let me enter, that would be unjust and unlibertarian, but it's hard for me to get too worked up about it. Those Swiss politicians have no right to do that, it's not their country, but it's not mine either! If 90% of the Swiss don't want me there, that's awfully close to the unanimous consent libertarianism would technically require.  Am I really being oppressed by simply not being given the privilege of entering their mountain refuge?  I don't think so.  It's not a big oppression. 
> 
> I just don't get it. 
> 
> Maybe you can explain it to me?


There are more than a few nations that are not ethnically or culturally "pure" as it stands now. The only thing that "unites" these diverse populations are artificial borders, brightly colored flags, state-contolled economies, and jurisdiction enforced by violence.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

You're addressing the same aspects that undergroundrr did in his reply -- the part I understand. He focused on culture and race; you focused on nations.  Again, I get it. Nations are artificial; race is imaginary; culture doesn't matter. OK. Great!  The nation part I even agree with, to an extent. 

But what is so "hateful" about not wanting your country, artificial or not, invaded by millions of people?  And particularly if the invaders are largely, if you are honest you'll admit it, too: riff-raff. It's a libertarian snafu, it's true; but in the scheme of things it is very low on the "how much oppression and aggression is happening here?" scale.  At least it seems to me. I get to continue living in the same place I've lived all my life and no one bothers me at all?  It's just that Country X didn't let me move in there?  Not much oppression in that. 

And hate?  Look, there's a whole lot of people I know. None of them do I want moving into my house with me. Does that mean I hate them?  No. Many of them are my friends. I like them. I just don't want them moving in. Does that make sense?

----------


## PierzStyx

> You're addressing the same aspects that undergroundrr did in his reply -- the part I understand. He focused on culture and race; you focused on nations.  Again, I get it. Nations are artificial; race is imaginary; culture doesn't matter. OK. Great!  The nation part I even agree with, to an extent. 
> 
> But what is so "hateful" about not wanting your country, artificial or not, invaded by millions of people?  And particularly if the invaders are largely, if you are honest you'll admit it, too: riff-raff. It's a libertarian snafu, it's true; but in the scheme of things it is very low on the "how much oppression and aggression is happening here?" scale.  At least it seems to me. I get to continue living in the same place I've lived all my life and no one bothers me at all?  It's just that Country X didn't let me move in there?  Not much oppression in that. 
> 
> And hate?  Look, there's a whole lot of people I know. None of them do I want moving into my house with me. Does that mean I hate them?  No. Many of them are my friends. I like them. I just don't want them moving in. Does that make sense?


Immigrants aren't invaders. Go read a dictionary if you don't understand the difference.


Secondly, you don't own the land the "nation" sits on. Your right to limit the movement of anyone across any land begins and ends with land you directly and privately own. Your assertion of the power to regulate land you do not own is tyranny, the assumption of a power you do not have and which you force on other through violence.

Thirdly, you're oppressing the people in your nation as much a syou are the immigrant by demanding the right to regulate my property, my money, and my association rights, as well as overthrowing the free market and thus oppressing my rights to buy and sell with whomsoever I wish by ending the free flow of human capital. Not to mention your large national government empowered to force its will on people will not stop with immigration.

You own your house. You do not own the nation. Therefore it doesn't matter what you want. It only matters what you have a right to do. This is what separates us from the Progressives. We recognize that inalienable rights means the government can't just force something on people because the most people "want it."

Finally, my Mexican neighbor's Cinco de Mayo celebration doesn't prevent me from celebrating Independence Day. My Chinese neighbor's celebration of Chinese New Year doesn't change my ability to celebrate the New Year on Jan. 1st. I can be fully myself while everyone else does their own thing. So can you. Therefore your argument makes no sense.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Where I get lost is why it's so hateful/racist/evil in your mind -- and many many others on the left, it's not just you -- to have people distributed.


You can really say things like "have people distributed" batting an eyelash?  Distributed by whom?  By what means?  According to what criteria?  I'm not really so concerned about the "racism" aspect of it.  Whatever categorization you use, it sounds like you're herding animals into pens.  Leaving aside the concept of human rights, caged humans tend to want to overthrow their captors.  It's just not a good formula for world peace.  I think freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of commerce will work better.

People keep bringing up Switzerland, but I don't think Switzerland is quite the example you're looking for.

The Swiss have maintained economic prosperity by wisely staying independent from the EU and keeping free trade as open as possible with every other country on Earth that would allow it. Yes, in 2014, they barely (50.3% vote) put some rule-of-thumb immigration guidelines in place. But freedom of movement has always been an abiding principle there. Like the US, they are an immigrant nation and have recognized the benefits of influx. They've had sustained periods of free immigration (late 40s to early 60s, a period when millions had been displaced by war) but for the most part have been like the US, semi-restrictive with a divide in the populace between "liberals" and "conservatives" on the issue. The recent "crackdown" on immigration (such that it is) there is politically driven by escalating unemployment, it's fairly tepid, and nobody knows what what effect it will have in the long term if any.

And they give immigrants tons of social welfare, in my opinion a bad idea.




> For example, an Italian who arrives in Switzerland with an open-ended employment contract has the right to a five-year, renewable residence permit. If he loses his job, he can get unemployment insurance – as long as he can show he has worked at least 12 months in the past two years – and in case of need he can get social welfare.
> 
> For Parmelin, those who are no longer contributing should have to go back to their own countries soon instead of “burdening the social welfare system”.


http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/free-mov...aders/37835956

There's also a tangled mess between state-level and federal-level welfare. Same as here.

----------


## tod evans

> It's just not a good formula for world peace.


Like the NAP world peace is a good and noble idea..

In reality though.................There's too damn many people and not enough dirt.

----------


## otherone

> You're addressing the same aspects that undergroundrr did in his reply -- the part I understand. He focused on culture and race; you focused on nations.  Again, I get it. Nations are artificial; race is imaginary; culture doesn't matter. OK. Great!  The nation part I even agree with, to an extent. 
> 
> But what is so "hateful" about not wanting your country, artificial or not, invaded by millions of people?  And particularly if the invaders are largely, if you are honest you'll admit it, too: riff-raff. It's a libertarian snafu, it's true; but in the scheme of things it is very low on the "how much oppression and aggression is happening here?" scale.  At least it seems to me. I get to continue living in the same place I've lived all my life and no one bothers me at all?  It's just that Country X didn't let me move in there?  Not much oppression in that. 
> 
> And hate?  Look, there's a whole lot of people I know. None of them do I want moving into my house with me. Does that mean I hate them?  No. Many of them are my friends. I like them. I just don't want them moving in. Does that make sense?


My argument isn't about "hate". You are free to hate whoever you want, as am I.
My interest is protecting your rights.  My rights.
To use your "90 percent, near unanimous", example:
If 90% of your local jurisdiction passed a law that required you to gain their approval of who you sold your property to, who you employed, who you sold goods to, or who you leased your property to, would you object?  On what grounds?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Therefore your argument makes no sense.


If you had *read* any of the perhaps one hundred posts (guessing) I've written on this subject over the past ten years, including one thread devoted to the subject, you might have:

1) Any slightest bit of an idea what I believe on this subject

2) The right to an opinion on whether what I believe makes sense or not

Also, please note: I made no *argument* in post $486 above.  Just chatting.  If I was making an argument, you would know it.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Also, please note: I made no *argument* in post $486 above.  Just chatting.  If I was making an argument, you would know it.


I counted five arguments in that post.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Yeah, I get it: no such thing as race, as culture, as loyalty to a country. That much I get. I understand you on that, even though I differ, strongly. 
> 
> Where I get lost is why it's so hateful/racist/evil in your mind -- and many many others on the left, it's not just you -- to have people distributed. To have Switzerland remain Swiss. Are the Swiss really committing hate crime and genocide by simply not inviting the population of the world to invade their country?  It seems like their prerogative. I mean, if the Swiss govt refused to let me enter, that would be unjust and unlibertarian, but it's hard for me to get too worked up about it. Those Swiss politicians have no right to do that, it's not their country, but it's not mine either! If 90% of the Swiss don't want me there, that's awfully close to the unanimous consent libertarianism would technically require.  Am I really being oppressed by simply not being given the privilege of entering their mountain refuge?  I don't think so.  It's not a big oppression. 
> 
> I just don't get it. 
> 
> Maybe you can explain it to me?


They have NO arguments to make. They lie, they deny facts, they really do project their values/views as universal. Any facts or experience with prove them wrong are not valid because "MUH FEELS".

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You can really say things like "have people distributed" batting an eyelash?  Distributed by whom?  By what means?


 Just a confuzzlement.  You took distributed as a verb, not an adjective, active, not passive.  I just mean to let people continue to be distributed throughout the world, just as they are now.  As opposed to having a mass super-exodus to the United States (and Europe).

That's all!

By not allowing a person to migrate to and take up residence in the United States, the "pen" that they are "trapped" in by such action is:

The Entire Rest of the Universe

And the subsequent behavior of the "captors" in relation to him, the behavior that so violates his "human rights" is:

They leave him completely alone and have no interaction with him whatsoever.

Sounds like not so bad a deal.  No US IRS collecting income taxes.  No US environmentalists forcing you to comply with nonsense torture.  No US gays destroying your business with lawsuits.  No US cops in your yard, shooting your dog.  Would that we could all be so lucky!  Can you deal me in for some of _that_ "oppression"?

Please replace "Switzerland" with "Swaziland" (or Mozambique!) in my _purely hypothetical thought experiment_ and see if you can see your way to understanding my question.

And maybe answer it!  I honestly wonder your opinion/feelings/thoughts.  I guess there's two questions on the table now: 

Why do you associate immigration limitation with necessarily being filled with hatefulness, and

Would you, personally, really feel all that "oppressed" if Bhutan refused to let you into their country?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I counted five arguments in that post.


If I am arguing for something.... what is it?

What is my position?

Pray tell.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I counted five arguments in that post.


Do you remember the part when *I agreed with all substantive points you have made* in this thread regarding immigration?

And then you stone-walled, totally ignored it and decided to pretend it didn't happen?

Remember that?

Good times.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Immigrants aren't invaders. Go read a dictionary if you don't understand the difference.
> 
> 
> Secondly, you don't own the land the "nation" sits on. Your right to limit the movement of anyone across any land begins and ends with land you directly and privately own. Your assertion of the power to regulate land you do not own is tyranny, the assumption of a power you do not have and which you force on other through violence.
> 
> Thirdly, you're oppressing the people in your nation as much a syou are the immigrant by demanding the right to regulate my property, my money, and my association rights, as well as overthrowing the free market and thus oppressing my rights to buy and sell with whomsoever I wish by ending the free flow of human capital. Not to mention your large national government empowered to force its will on people will not stop with immigration.
> 
> You own your house. You do not own the nation. Therefore it doesn't matter what you want. It only matters what you have a right to do. This is what separates us from the Progressives. We recognize that inalienable rights means the government can't just force something on people because the most people "want it."
> 
> Finally, my Mexican neighbor's Cinco de Mayo celebration doesn't prevent me from celebrating Independence Day. My Chinese neighbor's celebration of Chinese New Year doesn't change my ability to celebrate the New Year on Jan. 1st. I can be fully myself while everyone else does their own thing. So can you. Therefore your argument makes no sense.


Lower wages
Lower standard of living
Lower trust and unity
Higher crime rates
Higher Poverty
Higher distrust
Higher terrorism
Higher welfare usage
Higher rates of Immigrants voting in marxists who promise them 'free" stuff.

Trying wearing a shirt with a US flag on it to school on Cinco de Mayo in CA, See what happens to you. Try having a Christmas Play or Party at work or school, see what happens.

Also America is clearly more mine/my factions then it is yours. If America does not belong to you/anyone then we are free to take it and protect it from the insanity of open border zealots /cultural relativists.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> My argument isn't about "hate". You are free to hate whoever you want, as am I.
> My interest is protecting your rights.  My rights.


Right on, then.  Me, too.

90% ain't 100%.  I'm with you, man.  I am.  It's just, in the scheme of things, even though _all_ the things that 90% decides to do will be technically against libertarianism, _some_ things they could decide to do will be _far, far worse_ than other, more relatively benign things.

I can see both sides.  I certainly am not an RoL clone, despite undergroundrailroad's attempt to shoehorn/lump me in with him.  I'm deeply, passionately for freedom, and against oppression.  That sums up my political philosophy.  But I also tend to / try to have _proportionate_ rage against oppressions depending on just how oppressive and important they really are.  Don't you think that's reasonable?

Letting hundreds of millions of people who want to come to the US just stay where they are instead seems to me a really (really, really) unimportant oppression to prioritize.  Fighting that battle is not going to Win Victory for Liberty.  In fact, as much as you may not like it, there is a place for consequentialism in philosophy, for actual practical considerations, and in this case there is extremely strong reason to believe that fighting this particular minor oppression and continuing to leave the floodgates open will be the doom and death of any freedom from all _other_ types of oppression (much more important, oppressive types).

I want Freedom.  I don't want to just impotently talk about freedom.  Big difference.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Where do Republicans and Democrats differ?  Not a whole lot.


The Alt Right wing of the GOP (Nationalist, populist, etc) Wing differ massively





> I was talking about this forum specifically.


Myopicness...Classic. Ignore everything that could prove you wrong.




> Because it's not like the next decade would be terrible for liberty in America, right?


1924-1934

Where largely good times...Until the Stock Market tanked, The Depression struck, the Bonus Army was massacred by the army, and the fools elected a crippled marxist to high office who only mad things even worse.

We compared to the bombings/terror campaigns led by immigrant terrorists, things where better, wages rose, jobs were plentiful, you are just mad more and more are seeing that mass immigration is a racket, and 1924 produced massive benefits on America, its culture, and the American people themselves.

You want open borders? Take of the doors of your home..You wont, and we all know why. 

The answer to 1965 is 1924.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Right on, then.  Me, too.
> 
> 90% ain't 100%.  I'm with you, man.  I am.  It's just, in the scheme of things, even though _all_ the things that 90% decides to do will be technically against libertarianism, _some_ things they could decide to do will be _far, far worse_ than other, more relatively benign things.
> 
> I can see both sides.  I certainly am not an RoL clone, despite undergroundrailroad's attempt to shoehorn/lump me in with him.  I'm deeply, passionately for freedom, and against oppression.  That sums up my political philosophy.  But I also tend to / try to have _proportionate_ rage against oppressions depending on just how oppressive and important they really are.  Don't you think that's reasonable?
> 
> Letting hundreds of millions of people who want to come to the US just stay where they are instead seems to me a really (really, really) unimportant oppression to prioritize.  Fighting that battle is not going to Win Victory for Liberty.  In fact, as much as you may not like it, there is a place for consequentialism in philosophy, for actual practical considerations, and in this case there is extremely strong reason to believe that fighting this particular minor oppression and continuing to leave the floodgates open will be the doom and death of any freedom from all _other_ types of oppression (much more important, oppressive types).
> 
> I want Freedom.  I don't want to just impotently talk about freedom.  Big difference.


You sum up why open border Libertarian is a self defeating fantasy.

----------


## otherone

> I want Freedom.  I don't want to just impotently talk about freedom.  Big difference.


Yes potent talk about freedom is much more constructive.
MAGA, bitches.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Yes potent talk about freedom is much more constructive.
> MAGA, bitches.



Compared to people who want to bring in welfare voters from the 3rd world with IQs around room temperature, she just talking is more constructive then you because your actions are highly destructive.

----------


## otherone

> Compared to people who want to bring in welfare voters from the 3rd world with IQs around room temperature, _she_ just talking is more constructive then you because your actions are highly destructive.


You aren't the sharpest advocate of nativism.  Your interests would be better served by letting "her" speak on your behalf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_H%C3%BCbener

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> You aren't the sharpest advocate of nativism.  Your interests would be better served by letting "her" speak on your behalf.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_H%C3%BCbener


Autism speaks....Through you.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> The Alt Right wing of the GOP (Nationalist, populist, etc) Wing differ massively


And which members of the alt-right hold power?  Y'all couldn't even get 5% of the vote in the one Senate race you competed in.




> Myopicness...Classic. Ignore everything that could prove you wrong.


I made a statement about this website, and you expanded in into the entire world.




> 1924-1934
> 
> Where largely good times...Until the Stock Market tanked, The Depression struck, the Bonus Army was massacred by the army, and the fools elected a crippled marxist to high office who only mad things even worse.
> 
> We compared to the bombings/terror campaigns led by immigrant terrorists, things where better, wages rose, jobs were plentiful, you are just mad more and more are seeing that mass immigration is a racket, and 1924 produced massive benefits on America, its culture, and the American people themselves.
> 
> You want open borders? Take of the doors of your home..You wont, and we all know why. 
> 
> The answer to 1965 is 1924.


So it looks like the immigration act didn't work too well with regards to protecting liberty.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Yes potent talk about freedom is much more constructive.
> MAGA, bitches.


Ha, ha, ha! 

I prefer action. Not potent talk but poten*cy*. What's constructive is construction.

----------


## merkelstan

Thank you for the interesting discussion.  From a country entering a multi-cultural mode...

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> And which members of the alt-right hold power?  Y'all couldn't even get 5% of the vote in the one Senate race you competed in.


Have you seen some of the newest members of the GOP/members of Trump`s team? Bannon alone is shaping the future, soon we will have total control over the leadership of the GOP.

How many LOLteratians hold office?




> I made a statement about this website, and you expanded in into the entire world.


Yeah because that is were life happens.




> So it looks like the immigration act didn't work too well with regards to protecting liberty.


[/QUOTE]

It kept out terrorists, criminals, burdens, "cheap" labor, marxists, future trouble makers. Immigration limitations does not solve all problems.

----------


## undergroundrr

> If I am arguing for something.... what is it?
> 
> What is my position?
> 
> Pray tell.


otherone's argument is identical to undergrr's.
Undergrr focused on culture and race. otherone focused on nations.
The country is being invaded by millions of people.
These "invaders" are riff-raff.
Oppression is relative. 

You're arguing for a lesser of two evils - That restricting the movement of individuals is less oppressive than your having to share line of sight, smell & hearing with those you personally consider riff-raff whenever you're within the borders of US Fedgov.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Trying wearing a shirt with a US flag on it to school on Cinco de Mayo in CA, See what happens to you.


Would they look down on that? If so, they're onto something.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> otherone's argument is identical to undergrr's.
> Undergrr focused on culture and race. otherone focused on nations.
> The country is being invaded by millions of people.
> These "invaders" are riff-raff.
> Oppression is relative. 
> 
> You're arguing for a lesser of two evils - That restricting the movement of individuals is less oppressive than your having to share line of sight, smell & hearing with those you personally consider riff-raff whenever you're within the borders of US Fedgov.


You definitely have helmut_hubener's number.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> otherone's argument is identical to undergrr's.
> Undergrr focused on culture and race. otherone focused on nations.
> The country is being invaded by millions of people.
> These "invaders" are riff-raff.
> Oppression is relative.


 Huh?

I find your standard to qualify as an "argument" unacceptably low.

Raise the bar, U.R.R.!




> You're arguing for a lesser of two evils - That restricting the movement of individuals is less oppressive than your having to share line of sight, smell & hearing with those you personally consider riff-raff whenever you're within the borders of US Fedgov.


Thank you for finally answering one (1) of my questions!  Truly!  This is how we do it.  This is communication.

I do not, in fact believe "that restricting the movement of individuals is less oppressive than having to share line of sight, smell & hearing with those I personally consider riff-raff whenever I am within the borders of US Fedgov."  Since I do not believe it, I find it very unlikely that I have been arguing on behalf of this position.  Perhaps you could provide the quote(s) where I did this.  Then, we could both refute it together!  Thanks.

If you are ever interested (even a little!) in what I actually believe, feel free to take off the blinders of hate and you will find me quite accessible.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You definitely have helmut_hubener's number.


Just out to make some enemies, Man?

----------


## otherone

> I do not, in fact believe "that restricting the movement of individuals is less oppressive than having to share line of sight, smell & hearing with those I personally consider riff-raff whenever I am within the borders of US Fedgov."  Since I do not believe it, I find it very unlikely that I have been arguing on behalf of this position.  Perhaps you could provide the quote(s) where I did this.





> But what is so "hateful" about not wanting your country, artificial or not, invaded by millions of people?  And particularly if the invaders are largely, if you are honest you'll admit it, too: riff-raff.


Is what you are saying is that if the "right" of free association is "libertarian" on a local scale, then it must exist on a national scale?

edit:  I enjoy conversing with you, but can you dispense with terms like "invading"?  Hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.

----------


## undergroundrr

> blinders of hate


My gosh. It's discussion on a vBulletin. I assure you it takes a lot more than exchange of ideas to summon up such a thing. I certainly haven't suspected it from the other direction. 

And I find your views very accessible.

I synthesized your "argument" from this particular paragraph - 




> But what is so "hateful" about not wanting your country, artificial or not, invaded by millions of people? And particularly if the invaders are largely, if you are honest you'll admit it, too: riff-raff. It's a libertarian snafu, it's true; but in the scheme of things it is very low on the "how much oppression and aggression is happening here?" scale. At least it seems to me. I get to continue living in the same place I've lived all my life and no one bothers me at all? It's just that Country X didn't let me move in there? Not much oppression in that.


Excuse me if I concluded that beginning your point with "But what is so 'hateful'" etc., indicated you were sympathetic with the subsequent, well, tripe.

As I and at least one other pointed out, hate doesn't necessarily come into it, although really that's down to the individual xenoreluctant. I'd suggest that irrational fear is likely to be an element.

And to your point "Not much oppression in that."  Well, yes there is, but perhaps you're not considering that it's the property-owning citizen in Country X who's being oppressed. He's not the one who prevented you from getting to his property. The Country X government infringed on that Country X-ian's property rights and freedom of association. That citizen has lost his right to worship, trade, dine, have a guitar jam, etc. with you. And that's sad because I think you're probably delightful company.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> edit:  I enjoy conversing with you, but can you dispense with terms like "invading"?  Hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.


That's fine.  I can use whatever terms you find most agreeable.




> Is what you are saying is that if the "right" of free association is "libertarian" on a local scale, then it must exist on a national scale?


 No.  You are quite right in your scare quotes.  Like so many other "rights" -- to bear arms, to a free press, etc. -- it is contingent upon actually doing things with one's own property in order to actualize that right -- purchasing and carrying a weapon, acquiring and operating a printing press, etc.  Enjoying absolute freedom of association (the freedom to determine arbitrarily (sovereignly) with whom exactly you will and will not associate) on a very large scale would require purchasing land on a very large scale.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> My gosh. It's discussion on a vBulletin. I assure you it takes a lot more than exchange of ideas to summon up such a thing. I certainly haven't suspected it from the other direction.


  LOL, it's just some of that "hyperbole" otherone was talking about.  Keep in mind it was *you* who brought the word "hate" into it, accusing people of being hateful just for holding a different view than yours.

Not too charitable.

Me, I can see both points of view.




> And to your point "Not much oppression in that."  Well, yes there is,


 You, undergroundrr, seriously would feel grievously oppressed if Swaziland politely declined your entry request?  Seriously?  If you really and honestly would personally feel that way, I very much would like to know: why?  Explain why you would feel that way.




> but perhaps you're not considering that it's the property-owning citizen in Country X who's being oppressed.


 Oh, I consider everything .  Again: the influx of immigrants wasn't there _before_.  If he wasn't feeling oppressed ten years ago when his city had no Mexican restaurants and was not 50% Hispanic, he probably is continuing to _still_ not feel oppressed about it today if that situation has continued.

Rightly or wrongly, that's just human nature.  I mean, it certainly _is_ an oppression.  You're right about that (so am I -- I've made that very point many times).  But it's kind of a very abstract oppression.  Abstract.  Hypothetical.  "There are people who _could_ be sweeping your floors, if only they were to migrate here, but instead they're 1,000 miles away.  You're being oppressed, man!  Fight for your rights to cheap sweeping manpower!"  Just a bit too theoretical and hypothetical for most.  Nobody's going to go to the barricades for that.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> otherone's argument is identical to undergrr's.
> Undergrr focused on culture and race. otherone focused on nations.
> The country is being invaded by millions of people.
> These "invaders" are riff-raff.
> Oppression is relative. 
> 
> You're arguing for a lesser of two evils - That restricting the movement of individuals is less oppressive than your having to share line of sight, smell & hearing with those you personally consider riff-raff whenever you're within the borders of US Fedgov.


And? its the lesser evil and it benefits everyone more then allowing the aliens hordes pour into this nation.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

And this infighting is reason 1,096,968 why the Alt Right is winning.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Would they look down on that? If so, they're onto something.



https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...ds+sent+home&*

Really? THEY ARE ON TO SOMETHING? So the hostile invaders have a valid point to attack OUR nation? Thank you for providing that multiculturalism is nothing more then a bunch of hostile warring factions in the same land mass.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Really? THEY ARE ON TO SOMETHING? So the hostile invaders have a valid point to attack OUR nation?


No, not our nation. The American flag, which was what you said.

And yes, if they look down on people revering the flag then they're on to something.

I keep getting so confused by someone with the handle "RestorationOfLiberty" being so unabashedly statist.

----------


## tod evans

> No, not our nation. The American flag, which was what you said.
> 
> And yes, if they look down on people revering the flag then they're on to something.
> 
> I keep getting so confused by someone with the handle "RestorationOfLiberty" being so unabashedly statist.


Some folks, like me, still view the flag as a symbol of freedom and liberty in times past and not as a symbol of what government has become.

It sickens me to see copsuckers and statists corrupting the meaning of "The Flag" and unfortunately you are aiding in their corruption by accepting that it represents what they've turned this country into...

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Some folks, like me, still view the flag as a symbol of freedom and liberty in times past and not as a symbol of what government has become.
> 
> It sickens me to see copsuckers and statists corrupting the meaning of "The Flag" and unfortunately you are aiding in their corruption by accepting that it represents what they've turned this country into...


The freedom and liberty that you thought the flag stood for back in the good ole days wasn't freedom and liberty.

----------


## tod evans

> The freedom and liberty that you thought the flag stood for back in the good ole days wasn't freedom and liberty.


Do NOT try to tell me what I think! 

WTF is wrong with you?

Have I ever insulted you in such a manner?

Now.............

If you can couch a logical and compelling argument on why you think I should entertain your opinion over my own or if you believe something you have experienced should in some way overshadow what I have experienced then by all means set forth your position.

Otherwise shove it up your ass.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Do NOT try to tell me what I think!


I don't need to. You already told me. I was replying to your own words.




> Have I ever insulted you in such a manner?


I don't see how I insulted you. Your post was an invitation for disagreement like mine. And, since you ask, yes, you said that I was aiding and abetting what copsuckers and statists had turned this country into. I don't really see why you think anything I said was any worse than that.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> If you can couch a logical and compelling argument on why you think I should entertain your opinion over my own or if you believe something you have experienced should in some way overshadow what I have experienced then by all means set forth your position.


A logical and compelling argument to prove that the American flag has never been a symbol of freedom and liberty except inasmuch as some people may have misunderstood it?

How much of an argument is really necessary here? It should be obvious to anyone who reflects on the question a bit.

Consider the official symbolism of the flag. Does anything on it stand for freedom? There are lots of symbols of statism all over it.

Consider the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag as a symbol of one indivisible nation.

Consider the history of the flag's use, and its evolution from being a military ensign to an anti-secessionist symbol during the Civil War.

Consider the role it has played in public education for the entirety of all of our lifetimes, regardless how old you might be, as a means of entrenching loyalty to the regime in Washington DC.

----------


## undergroundrr

I think the last US flag worth saluting might have been this one.

----------


## Superfluous Man

"When tyranny comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

Apparently Sinclair Lewis, to whom that line is often misattributed, never said it. That's just as well for me, because to me those words will always be Ron Paul's.

When I see people here pointing to someone's lack of reverence for the flag as a reason they shouldn't be allowed to remain in the country, that sets off an alarm. It's the kind of acquiescence to propaganda that every tyrant thrives on.

----------


## tod evans

> A logical and compelling argument to prove that the American flag has never been a symbol of freedom and liberty except inasmuch as some people may have misunderstood it?.


No I asked you to provide a compelling argument as to why I should value your opinion over my own.

Nice try though.




> How much of an argument is really necessary here? It should be obvious to anyone who reflects on the question a bit..


Well given that you obviously consider yourself of a vastly superior intellect maybe you'd be so kind as to dumb down your lofty prose so a simple man could grasp the platform you claim to hold...




> Consider the official symbolism of the flag. Does anything on it stand for freedom? There are lots of symbols of statism all over it..


Obviously the "symbolism" means something different to you than it does to me as evidenced by your mention of "statism" which leads back to my post on the subject and how you are being part and party to misrepresenting the meaning I accept. 




> Consider the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag as a symbol of one indivisible nation..


How about sticking to the flag itself for a bit instead of going off on tangents?




> Consider the history of the flag's use, and its evolution from being a military ensign to an anti-secessionist symbol during the Civil War..


Here is a very important distinction from your link;




> Before that day, the flag had served mostly as a military ensign or a convenient marking of American territory, flown from forts, embassies, and ships, and displayed on special occasions like American Independence day. But in the weeks after Major Anderson's surprising stand, it became something different.






> Consider the role it has played in public education for the entirety of all of our lifetimes, regardless how old you might be, as a means of entrenching loyalty to the regime in Washington DC.


Again you equate the flag to statism which I've already accused you of promoting with your misguided assertions.

You give the ignorant an object on which they can focus, one side claiming it represents one thing and the other claiming it represents something different.

Freedom to you most assuredly means something different than it does to me, liberty too...

When The Nawth grabbed onto the flag to promote their war on the south the meaning changed drastically, see your own link. 

The flag, and the concept of a flag to represent freedom and liberty has been misappropriated and you are furthering the endeavors by buying into the new and improved meanings.

Then you set forth that I am the one who has a wrong or incorrect opinion without actually offering one of your own...

Keep trying, I'm not convinced.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> No I asked you to provide a compelling argument as to why I should value your opinion over my own.


You shouldn't. And I never implied that you should. So why would you ask me to provide an argument for that?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> When The Nawth grabbed onto the flag to promote their war on the south the meaning changed drastically, see your own link.


Correct. Before that it was a military ensign, not a symbol of freedom. And I'm pretty sure that whatever this change in meaning entailed, your entire life has been lived in the post-Civil War period, saluting a flag with the meaning it came to have after that.

----------


## tod evans

> I don't see how I insulted you. Your post was an invitation for disagreement like mine. And, since you ask, yes, you said that I was aiding and abetting what copsuckers and statists had turned this country into. I don't really see why you think anything I said was any worse than that.


Response to your edit;

By claiming that Nazis and/or statists (your picture) are representative of the flag you have most assuredly tried to move honest freedom and liberty lovers into another camp, one that seems to involve such atrocities as globalization...

Such blatant attempts at polarization speak to the inherent weakness of both positions.

----------


## tod evans

> Correct. Before that it was a military ensign, not a symbol of freedom. And I'm pretty sure that whatever this change in meaning entailed, your entire life has been lived in the post-Civil War period, saluting a flag with the meaning it came to have after that.


My education didn't end with the civil war, neither did the knowledge I use to form my opinions.

Can you set forth any reason I should value your opinions over my own?

You certainly haven't tried yet.

[edit]

I'm off to the shop for a while, things to build, and it seems as though I'm typing over you or vice-versa.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Can you set forth any reason I should value your opinions over my own?


Of course not. You shouldn't.

It just happens to be the case that in the present discussion, which has nothing to do with either of our opinions, I'm right and you're wrong.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'm off to the shop for a while, things to build, and it seems as though I'm typing over you or vice-versa.


You mean to be *constructive*?  To actually create something in real life?

Is that allowed?

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> You mean to be *constructive*?  To actually create something in real life?
> 
> Is that allowed?


_tod evans_ is the kind of guy to share a trench with.

----------


## tod evans

> Of course not. You shouldn't.
> 
> It just happens to be the case that in the present discussion, which has nothing to do with either of our opinions, I'm right and you're wrong.


Here's my opinion, which you claim I'm wrong for possessing;




> *Some folks, like me, still view the flag as a symbol of freedom and liberty in times past and not as a symbol of what government has become.*
> 
> It sickens me to see copsuckers and statists corrupting the meaning of "The Flag" and unfortunately you are aiding in their corruption by accepting that it represents what they've turned this country into...


Sure seems like I was right with my statement about folks like you being just as bad as the statists by accepting their meaning.

But I said as much in this post that you chose to ignore;




> Response to your edit;
> 
> By claiming that Nazis and/or statists (your picture) are representative of the flag you have most assuredly tried to move honest freedom and liberty lovers into another camp, one that seems to involve such atrocities as globalization...
> 
> Such blatant attempts at polarization speak to the inherent weakness of both positions.

----------


## tod evans

> You mean to be *constructive*?  To actually create something in real life?
> 
> Is that allowed?




I'm eating a sammich that I made myself from beef my neighbor raised....

Life is good.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Here's my opinion, which you claim I'm wrong for possessing;
> 
> 
> 
> Sure seems like I was right with my statement about folks like you being just as bad as the statists by accepting their meaning.
> 
> But I said as much in this post that you chose to ignore;


But IS the flag a symbol of freedom and liberty?

That's the question. It's not a matter of opinion.

Or are you pulling a Humpty Dumpty where any given symbol just means what you choose it to mean?

By no means should you value my opinion over yours. But you should value truth over falsehood.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> But IS the flag a symbol of freedom and liberty?


Please review in your mind the meaning of the word "symbol."

----------


## tod evans

> But IS the flag a symbol of freedom and liberty?
> 
> That's the question. It's not a matter of opinion.
> 
> Or are you pulling a Humpty Dumpty where any given symbol just means what you choose it to mean?
> 
> By no means should you value my opinion over yours. But you should value truth over falsehood.


Obviously it IS a matter of opinion, and I think your opinion is wrong.

In fact I've stated unequivocally that your opinion bolsters and encourages big government advocates to dig in their heels and cling harder to the flag of mine that they stole.

Thanks for playing their game.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Please review in your mind the meaning of the word "symbol."


Done.

And?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Obviously it IS a matter of opinion


That's not at all obvious to me.

Is the meaning of the symbol ∏ in mathematics also just a matter of opinion?

Is the meaning of any given word in any given context a matter of opinion? If so, then language is impossible, and we're not actually communicating.

And if what the flag symbolizes is a matter of opinion, then your post which started off this whole exchange criticizing me for having the wrong view of what the flag symbolizes makes no sense.

----------


## tod evans

> That's not at all obvious to me.
> .


That's apparent.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> In fact I've stated unequivocally that your opinion bolsters and encourages big government advocates to dig in their heels and cling harder to the flag of mine that they stole.


They didn't steal it. It's their flag, their symbol. It always has been. There's not some time in the past when it wasn't.

One thing the statists are right about is the meaning of their flag.

Speaking of digging in heels, let's be honest. You already know that what I'm saying is true. You've practically admitted it already. I get that it's hard to backtrack.

So let me ask you, when did the statists steal the American flag?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> That's apparent.


It's possible that I'm actually right.

----------


## tod evans

> It's possible that I'm actually right.


Anything is possible.

And I'll grant you that you believe you are and will try to argue your viewpoint until your fingers fall off.

But you certainly haven't convinced me of anything other than you enjoy playing the statist/big government game...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Done.
> 
> And?


A symbol has _symbolic_ meaning, insofar as it is given it by the minds of those interpreting the symbol.  It's totally subjective.

That's not "Humpty Dumpty" (whatever that means): it is the very nature and essence of symbols.  A symbol can mean whatever you want it to mean, and will mean very different things to different people.

That there are symbols with shared meanings, it is true.  Your example of mathematical symbols is a good example.  These are "symbols" in a very different sense: communicative symbols, rather than abstract and emotional ones.

A better example closer to the kind of symbolic meaning a flag or crest can have in a heart of a person would be a painting (or other work of art).  What is the meaning of a given painting?  The artist may have had a very specific meaning in mind.  But is that the "real" meaning?  Is it not totally valid for each recipient of the art to form his own thoughts on the meaning of the piece?  Not just valid, but inevitable!

What is the meaning of this poem, Superfluous Man?  Is one meaning "right" and another meaning "wrong"?

*The Road Not Taken*

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I 
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

----------


## otherone

> I think the last US flag worth saluting might have been this one.


Not even close...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

My favorite, of course:

----------


## Superfluous Man

> A symbol has _symbolic_ meaning, insofar as it is given it by the minds of those interpreting the symbol.  It's totally subjective.



So, how about the meanings of the symbols you're using to say things to me right now?

Those are totally subjective?

Words don't mean things?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> That's not "Humpty Dumpty" (whatever that means)


Humpty Dumpty was a famous character in Lewis Carrol's book, _Through the Looking Glass_.

Carrol used him to illustrate the absurdity of your philosophy of language.




> "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
>     Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
>     "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
>     "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
>     "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
>     "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
> 
>     Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty..._Looking-Glass

As others have noticed over the years, the kind of dishonesty that you are advocating is similar to what's behind the living document interpretations of the Constitution (as well as other laws, the Bible, and any number of other things that people pull these stunts with). It looks like your position is much more extreme than that of liberal judges though.

To answer your question, yes, one meaning is right, and the other is wrong. That's what makes symbols symbols, they mean things.

ETA: The irony of you adding the parenthesis "whatever that means" in your remark to me just struck me. I'll let you mull over why it's ironic, and hopefully it will sink in.

----------


## CPUd

Humpty Dumpty had the best words.

----------


## Ender

> My favorite, of course:


So what do you think the symbol of the snake is?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> your philosophy of language
> 
> the kind of dishonesty that you are advocating


 Grt a higher IQ. Seriously. If you're going to be insufferable, get a higher IQ. It just doesn't work otherwise. 




> MI'll let you mull it over.


 Mull...mull...mull

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Humpty Dumpty had all the best words.


Believe me!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So what do you think the symbol of the snake is?


Lucifer, the Devil, taking on his Slinky Form.

----------


## Ender

> Lucifer, the Devil, taking on his Slinky Form.


Actually, it's a symbol for Jesus; that's why Eve was fooled in The Garden.

The staff that Moses held up to cure those that would but look up, was a symbol of the saving power of The Christ.




> John 3:14
> Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
> 
> John 3:15
> that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life.





> Numbers 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.


Also:




> Different Images of Moses & The Snake
> 
> In one of these miracles, Moses is commanded to throw down his staff, and when he does so, it turns into a snake (nachash). God then tells Moses to grab the snake by the tail, and when he does so the snake reverts back into a staff. This miracle, along with two others, is used to convince the Jews that Moses is the legitimate messenger of God.
> 
> In Parashat Vaera, a similar miracle takes place. Moses and Aaron confront Pharaoh, bearing Gods command that the Jews be set free. Not surprisingly, their request meets with cynicism and rejection. However, to demonstrate that they have, in fact, been sent by God, Aaron is commanded to throw down his staff, which turns into a serpent (tanin).

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> that's why Eve was fooled in The Garden.


 You mean Satan took on the WRONG symbol?  How dare he?!  What nerve!  No wonder we think he's so evil.

By being sentimental about the good things the American flag stands for, Tod Evans and also I are being downright Satanic!  As are virtually all English speakers who misinterpret Stevenson. As is everyone who has a wrong theory about why Mona Lisa smiles.  And definitely everyone who appreciates Pollack in any way (these last actually may very well be disturbed! ). 

Being tedious is no fun. But, OK fine:  AGAIN, there are different types of symbols in this world. And many, especially artistic and ambiguous ones such as multicolor ensigns, are open to interpretation.

Old Glory pretty universally stands for something to do with America. That much is true. Tod chooses to focus on the good things about America, the truly noble and heroic elements of her character (and so do I).  You choose to focus on her crimes and brutalities and murders. 

Just two different mind sets, two different perspectives, two different attitudes.

----------


## Ender

> You mean Satan took on the WRONG symbol?  How dare he?!  What nerve!  No wonder we think he's so evil.
> 
> By being sentimental about the good things the American flag stands for, Tod Evans and also I are being downright Satanic!  As are virtually all English speakers who misinterpret Stevenson. As is everyone who has a wrong theory about why Mona Lisa smiles.  And definitely everyone who appreciates Pollack in any way (these last actually may very well be disturbed! ). 
> 
> Being tedious is no fun. But, OK fine:  AGAIN, there are different types of symbols in this world. And many, especially artistic and ambiguous ones such as multicolor ensigns, are open to interpretation.
> 
> Old Glory pretty universally stands for something to do with America. That much is true. Tod chooses to focus on the good things about America, the truly noble and heroic elements of her character (and so do I).  You choose to focus on her crimes and brutalities and murders. 
> 
> Just two different mind sets, two different perspectives, two different attitudes.


LOL

Is that an answer to my post to you? I was just pointing out a symbol that most don't know about- thought it was cool & that you'd enjoy it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> LOL
> 
> Is that an answer to my post to you? I was just pointing out a symbol that most don't know about- thought it was cool & that's you'd enjoy it.


No, that's cool Ender.  I had actually heard of that before, but still it's neat.  I'm still on about S. Man's low-IQ insufferable pompousness to tell everybody how Right he is about his mushy, baseless, totally subjective feelings about totally subjective pieces of cloth and to endlessly harangue those whose (equally) subjective feelings he decrees Wrong.

----------


## undergroundrr

> I'm still on about S. Man's low-IQ insufferable pompousness


Dude, chill pill. Superfluous Man has been right about everything I've ever seen him post about. You can understand how frustrating it is to argue with people who are wrong. Stand in his shoes for a minute.

----------


## timosman

> Dude, chill pill. Superfluous Man has been right about everything I've ever seen him post about. You can understand how frustrating it is to argue with people who are wrong. Stand in his shoes for a minute.


Superfluos man is a beacon of light gracing us with his presence for the last few months. I am even considering giving Zippy's favorite spot to him.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Dude, chill pill. Superfluous Man has been right about everything I've ever seen him post about. You can understand how frustrating it is to argue with people who are wrong. Stand in his shoes for a minute.


It actually is _not_ frustrating to argue (I'd prefer discuss) with people who are wrong.  It's INTERESTING to discuss things with people who are "wrong"!  That means they at least have something to say (that's rare enough), and something different than what you're saying (bonus!), and maybe, maaaaybe, even something you haven't already heard before (Super Bonus!  Very rare!).  And you can go back and forth and get some new ideas and be creative and often come to a synthesis of sorts.

What could be frustrating, depending on your mood, is when people are less intelligent than you.  When they just don't get what you're saying (or, even worse, pretend not to).  Me personally, I can deal with that.  Dumb people are cool.  I'm down with them.

But what does get old is dumb people who are extremely condescending, pompous, know-it-alls.  That's a bad mix, at least for me.  Don't like that.

For example: in my post regarding symbols, I stated the following:

"That there are symbols with shared meanings, it is true. *Your example of mathematical symbols is a good example.* These are "symbols" in a *very different* sense: communicative symbols, rather than abstract and emotional ones.

"A better example closer to the kind of symbolic meaning a flag or crest can have in a heart of a person would be a painting (or other work of art). What is the meaning of a given painting? The artist may have had a very specific meaning in mind. But is that the "real" meaning? Is it not totally valid for each recipient of the art to form his own thoughts on the meaning of the piece? Not just valid, but inevitable!"

And then I further illustrated with a highly symbolic poem whose universal "meaning" is very different, essentially the opposite, of the poet's intended meaning.  Thus there are at least two competing meanings with good claim to be canonical.

So, that was my post.  Now read Man's response to it.  Does he seem to have read these two paragraphs?  No, he does not.  This is stupid, either plain or playing.  He replies as if I am an Enemy of Consistency, of Language, and of the Constitution, when I have _already headed off this reply in advance!_  I already thought of it!  Funnily enough (but not too surprising -- this is a liberty forum) I even thought of the living document angle specifically!  And so I made sure to make my true thoughts clear, unambiguous, and well-explained.  I communicated the thoughts pretty well; I give myself a B at least.  Don't you think?  And I made it perfectly clear that I understood what Man was saying.  So what does he do?

He repeats ad nauseum _what he already said_ and what I already made _clear_ I _already understood_, and then he totally ignores the new thought that I had introduced.  Just ignores it.  This is a recipe for a *total stand-still* of a conversation.  Just total (intentional?) stagnation.  Never say anything new, never acknowledge anything anyone else says that's new.  Completely misunderstand (intentionally?) what everyone else says, until they give up in frustration. Or, as you probably see it: defeat.

That is not communication.  That is a failure of communication.  It's lame.  It's weaselly.  It's draining.  It's divisive.  And, most condemning epithet of all: it's BORING.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Dude, chill pill. Superfluous Man has been right about everything I've ever seen him post about. You can understand how frustrating it is to argue with people who are wrong. Stand in his shoes for a minute.


Ahahahahaha.

A fine demonstration of hyperbole.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Superfluos man is a beacon of light gracing us with his presence for the last few months. I am even considering giving Zippy's favorite spot to 
> him.


You should as Zippy clearly should not have it.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Well, Fashy Goy Memes is apparently a real thing.

https://twitter.com/fashy_goy_memes

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Immigrants aren't invaders. Go read a dictionary if you don't understand the difference.
> 
> 
> Secondly, you don't own the land the "nation" sits on. Your right to limit the movement of anyone across any land begins and ends with land you directly and privately own. Your assertion of the power to regulate land you do not own is tyranny, the assumption of a power you do not have and which you force on other through violence.
> 
> Thirdly, you're oppressing the people in your nation as much a syou are the immigrant by demanding the right to regulate my property, my money, and my association rights, as well as overthrowing the free market and thus oppressing my rights to buy and sell with whomsoever I wish by ending the free flow of human capital. Not to mention your large national government empowered to force its will on people will not stop with immigration.
> 
> You own your house. You do not own the nation. Therefore it doesn't matter what you want. It only matters what you have a right to do. This is what separates us from the Progressives. We recognize that inalienable rights means the government can't just force something on people because the most people "want it."
> 
> Finally, my Mexican neighbor's Cinco de Mayo celebration doesn't prevent me from celebrating Independence Day. My Chinese neighbor's celebration of Chinese New Year doesn't change my ability to celebrate the New Year on Jan. 1st. I can be fully myself while everyone else does their own thing. So can you. Therefore your argument makes no sense.


Really, have you seen how they vote? They do prevent you from doing, owning, keeping a great deal in many areas, but I guess you just ignore that as it proves your entire world view to be a total failure.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Yeah, I get it: no such thing as race, as culture, as loyalty to a country. That much I get. I understand you on that, even though I differ, strongly. 
> 
> Where I get lost is why it's so hateful/racist/evil in your mind -- and many many others on the left, it's not just you -- to have people distributed. To have Switzerland remain Swiss. Are the Swiss really committing hate crime and genocide by simply not inviting the population of the world to invade their country?  It seems like their prerogative. I mean, if the Swiss govt refused to let me enter, that would be unjust and unlibertarian, but it's hard for me to get too worked up about it. Those Swiss politicians have no right to do that, it's not their country, but it's not mine either! If 90% of the Swiss don't want me there, that's awfully close to the unanimous consent libertarianism would technically require.  Am I really being oppressed by simply not being given the privilege of entering their mountain refuge?  I don't think so.  It's not a big oppression. 
> 
> I just don't get it. 
> 
> Maybe you can explain it to me?


Because it threatens their entire world view, it proves that nations can exist, and exist very well existing among and by themselves. That without hordes of low IQed 3rd worlders everything chugs along very nicely, no need for gang units, welfare offices, social workers galore, no means for "Certain groups" to pit groups against each other for fun, power, and profit. 

It proves their idea of human interchangeable to be a total fraud, and makes them confront the fact that some people value some things, others do not and those who do not value Liberty, property rights, self defense, etc have to be kept out to begin with, and those among us removed/disenfranchised.

Some people would rather live in a comforting lie, even if it means losing everything they hold dear rather then pick up the rifle of truth and put down the threats to our rights, culture, and the people who created and the only people who are capable of propagating it.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Whites have their issues too:

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Whites have their issues too:


Kill it, kill it with $#@!ing fire.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Kill it, kill it with $#@!ing fire.


Imagine if people judged all white people by those deviants the same way you judge all non-white people by their deviants.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Imagine if people judged all white people by those deviants the same way you judge all non-white people by their deviants.


They do, I just stopped caring and seek to insure those that hate me/my groups/my culture/my nation/my rights/ etc from having the means of inflecting harm on them.

----------


## TheCount

In case you forgot what 2016 was like.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

CNN invented word : 
Alt Right.


NO...there is no such thing as ALT RIGHT. There are independents, who are moderately liberal or conservative who are fed up with the oligarchy

----------


## JohnGalt1225

The "alt-right" is a dead end.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> In case you forgot what 2016 was like.


O, I remember...




> CNN invented word : 
> Alt Right.


Actually, neo-NAZI Richard Spencer invented it, or at least popularized it. Words which describe unpleasant things naturally become slurs: e.g. retard. It doesn't matter how many times the word is changed (retard --> mentally challenged); if the underlying thing is unpleasant, so will be the connotation of the word. So, if one wishes to not be called a retard (or alt-righter), one must cease exhibiting the unpleasant characteristics which the word was originally devised to describe (respectively, extreme stupidity and ...extreme stupidity + nationalism).

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

The Spencerian alt-right is dead. He killed it through sheer incompetence.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The Spencerian alt-right is dead. He killed it through sheer incompetence.


Or malicious intent.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The Spencerian alt-right is dead. He killed it through sheer incompetence.


Didn't he also turn out to be a homosexual, or was that some other alt-right person?

...and not Milo, of course, who was an obviously flaming **** from day 1.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Or malicious intent.


Nah. He's just a guy who vastly overestimated his skills as a political leader. There are clips of him in his own words talking about how he believes himself to be a member of a natural elite, who was born to lead. Carlyle's great man, who will awaken the race. This is a delusion. Any movement lead by a man with such a total lack of self-awareness is bound to fail.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Didn't he also turn out to be a homosexual, or was that some other alt-right person?
> 
> ...and not Milo, of course, who was an obviously flaming **** from day 1.


Spencer is very effeminate and swishy, but he's (supposedly) straight. His ex-wife recently accused him of being an abusive alcoholic. Maybe he hit her because she was a few inches short of what he really wants.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Spencer is very effeminate and swishy, but he's (supposedly) straight. His ex-wife recently accused him of being an abusive alcoholic. Maybe he hit her because she was a few inches short of what he really wants.


It's striking that a disproportionate number of persons on the rightward side of the culture war are themselves deviants.

This was true even of the original NAZIs and Italian fascists (and, of course, of the proletarian socialists, whence they came).

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Nah. He's just a guy who vastly overestimated his skills as a political leader. There are clips of him in his own words talking about how he believes himself to be a member of a natural elite, who was born to lead. Carlyle's great man, who will awaken the race. This is a delusion. Any movement lead by a man with such a total lack of self-awareness is bound to fail.


Didn't he admit to being an FBI asset?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> and, of course, of the proletarian socialists


Speaking of which, I'm reminded of "Spartacus"...



I wonder if he and Mz. Linzi ever met in the Dulles airport bathroom...

I'm not sure what's most disturbing, his (apparent) behavior, or that people think the name "Spartacus" could ever be a badge of honor.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Didn't he admit to being an FBI asset?


No, I don't think so. He is from a very well-heeled and exceedingly wealthy family with many powerful political connections. There are pictures of him with Laura Bush. You might think that points to something, except all he's done, is squander them and is now crowdfunding money to pay his legal bills. Either he's incredibly cheap or just blew his fortune. The way I read him, he was told since birth that he was a great man, he would lead people, that he would have power someday. He got into white nationalist thought, became a figurehead and tried to finally grasp that power he was told he would inevitably possess. Except he couldn't, he simply didn't have the skill or strategic acumen to pull it off. It's funny how dead certain the alt-right was of their impending victory in 2016, and of how Spencer would skyrocket to national stardom and influence. 

The guy who allegedly claimed to be an FBI asset was (former?) libertarian-turned-white nationalist Chris Cantwell. Though that doesn't seem to have lead to anything. Cantwell is a totally deranged individual, former meth addict and alcoholic, with no control over his emotions. Exactly the type the alt-right attracts,

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No, I don't think so. He is from a very well-heeled and exceedingly wealthy family with many powerful political connections. There are pictures of him with Laura Bush. You might think that points to something, except all he's done, is squander them and is now crowdfunding money to pay his legal bills. Either he's incredibly cheap or just blew his fortune. The way I read him, he was told since birth that he was a great man, he would lead people, that he would have power someday. He got into white nationalist thought, became a figurehead and tried to finally grasp that power he was told he would inevitably possess. Except he couldn't, he simply didn't have the skill or strategic acumen to pull it off. It's funny how dead certain the alt-right was of their impending victory in 2016, and of how Spencer would skyrocket to national stardom and influence. 
> 
> The guy who allegedly claimed to be an FBI asset was (former?) libertarian-turned-white nationalist Chris Cantwell. Though that doesn't seem to have lead to anything. Cantwell is a totally deranged individual, former meth addict and alcoholic, with no control over his emotions. Exactly the type the alt-right attracts,


Yes, it was Cantwell.

I guess Spencer could simply be incompetent but I would still keep malicious intent on the table of possibilities.

----------


## dannno

> Spencer is very effeminate and swishy, but he's (supposedly) straight. His ex-wife recently accused him of being an abusive alcoholic. Maybe he hit her because she was a few inches short of what he really wants.


No, he actually used his prominence as a movement leader to hook up with young boys. 





> It's striking that a disproportionate number of persons on the rightward side of the culture war are themselves deviants.
> 
> This was true even of the original NAZIs and Italian fascists (and, of course, of the proletarian socialists, whence they came).


The dude is a fed and a socialist, nobody on the right cares about what he says. Nazism is not a right-wing ideology, you seem to be very mixed up.





> Didn't he admit to being an FBI asset?


No, but he is very clearly is one.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No, but he is very clearly is one.


That's how it looks to me, the Bush connection means he could be CIA instead though.

----------


## JohnGalt1225

Spencer is also currently dating a leftist SJW chick and she has said that outside of his racial views they agree on nearly everything. Spencer is the epitome of the All White Gay Discotheque.

----------


## dannno

> Spencer is also currently dating a leftist SJW chick


What the $#@! is wrong with women these days? Seriously?? You're an SJW chick and Richard Spencer is who you want to date??

----------


## pcosmar

Alt Right=ANTIFA

with different handlers.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> No, he actually used his prominence as a movement leader to hook up with young boys.


Is there evidence for this?




> What the $#@! is wrong with women these days? Seriously?? You're an SJW chick and Richard Spencer is who you want to date??


I wouldn't even call her an SJW; she isn't even that interesting. Check her Twitter:

https://twitter.com/bigbadwolfhuff?lang=en

Spencer's new beard, I mean girlfriend, is really just a basic bitch progressive who tweets about how Trump has "small hands". And she's a $#@!ing schoolteacher in a "diverse" part of the country. Spencer's life is in a sad, sad state.

Now, maybe I'm a little hypocritical since most of the women I've dated have been on the left, but I'm also not the public face of a dissident movement. I hope she understands what she's getting herself into; her life is going to be very, very different and not in a good way.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The dude is a fed and a socialist, nobody on the right cares about what he says.


He's the founder and (at least until very recently) most important spokesman (save Trump) for the modern nationalist movement. 




> Nazism is not a right-wing ideology, you seem to be very mixed up.


That depends on what we mean by left and right. If we're referring to cultural preferences (i.e. professed ones, nevermind the closeted weirdo-sexualism), then national socialism as represented by Spencer, La Pen, the goombah in Rome, and so forth is the epitome of the right. Their formula is essentially that foreigners are bad, and (more) welfare (for the right people) is good. On the other hand, if by right and left we mean to distinguish between socialists and those who favor laissez faire, then, yes, the national socialists whom you support stand on the leftward side of the Constituent Assembly, opposite persons who favor civilization (...actually those persons wouldn't be caught dead in that assembly, but you get the idea).

----------


## Swordsmyth

> He's the founder and (at least until very recently) most important spokesman (save Trump) for the modern nationalist movement.


LOL
You'd like that.
You've never heard of Pat Buchanan?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

Great  to see everyone else here is still being a spreg and getting NOTHING do.

----------


## tod evans

> Great  to see everyone else here is still being a spreg and getting NOTHING do.


English still causing you problems I see......

----------


## pcosmar

> Or malicious intent.


Or it was stupidity packaged for consumption.  and consumed by many.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> English still causing you problems I see......


"Lets focus on grammar, because if we get that right, everything else will fall into place like magic"-A Spreg.

----------


## tod evans

> "Lets focus on grammar, because if we get that right, everything else will fall into place like magic"-A Spreg.


Most people on the board, even the furriners, are able to communicate well using English..

What does that say about you?

----------


## dannno

> He's the founder and (at least until very recently) most important spokesman (save Trump) for the modern nationalist movement.


That is literally the dumbest thing I've read all month, maybe all year.

I'm sure the SPLC would love that to be true.. but nobody gives a $#@! about Richard Spencer.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> That is literally the dumbest thing I've read all month, maybe all year.
> 
> I'm sure the SPLC would love that to be true.. but nobody gives a $#@! about Richard Spencer.


That became true when he became an embarrassment, and not a moment before.

The same thing will play out with whoever else it is you crazy kids are currently worshiping on Youtube.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That became true when he became an embarrassment, and not a moment before.


It was always true.

Pat Buchanan is the author of the nationalist resurrection.

----------


## AuH20

Everyone is 'Alt Right' these days. Even Dave Rubin. I say just roll with it.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Most people on the board, even the furriners, are able to communicate well using English..
> 
> What does that say about you?


That _you_ are not a serious person.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> It was always true.
> 
> Pat Buchanan is the author of the nationalist resurrection.


And he should have been elected in the 90s...




> Everyone is 'Alt Right' these days. Even Dave Rubin. I say just roll with it.


Everyone not a cuck or neo con...So that creates a massive group of people.




> That is literally the dumbest thing I've read all month, maybe all year.
> 
> I'm sure the SPLC would love that to be true.. but nobody gives a $#@! about Richard Spencer.


The SPLC sees Nazis in their soup, "White nationalist" in white house paint, and all things where they do not exist everywhere they decide to look. 

Yeah, no one does, largely because he was a sperg, got a lot of bad light early on, never mind C-vile. He had potential, but it went down hill.

----------

