# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Molyneux the Nationalist

## Devilish

Does it bother anybody here that Stefan Molyneux, who used to be a hard core anarcho-capitalist, is now essentially a nationalist?

After being convinced of the following precepts:
-Crime is related to genetics
-IQ is related to genetics
-Cultural compatibility is necessary for a free society, and also largely genetic

He's basically totally flipped his mindset into supporting strong borders, strong communities and cultural values, and even a strong religion. He now regularly makes videos on the genetics of crime and the heritability of intelligence, and virulently supports Donald Trump.

So did he just go insane? Or does he have a point?













> I no longer believe in ethnic egalitarianism
> --Stefan Molyneux

----------


## tod evans

> Does it bother anybody here that Stefan Molyneux


It bothers me that supposedly rational people would actually invest the time to listen to this douche...

But whadda I know?

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## Origanalist

> +rep


And another.

----------


## LibertyEagle

lol.  This is hilarious.  I actually couldn't use to stand him.  But now, on at least some issues, he seems to have grown a brain.  He backs up his assertions, folks.  But, then again, he isn't playing to the world government crowd and their useful idiots any longer; so, some that used to love him no longer do.

----------


## tod evans

> lol.  This is hilarious.  I actually couldn't use to stand him.  But now, on at least some issues, he seems to have grown a brain.  He backs up his assertions, folks.  But, then again, he isn't playing to the world government crowd and their useful idiots any longer; so, some that used to love him no longer do.


I didn't listen to him then and I'm not going to listen to him now.

----------


## Origanalist

> I didn't listen to him then and I'm not going to listen to him now.


Everybody wants to make a video, lol.

----------


## silverhandorder

Disclaimer I don't speak for Stefan so anything I say is my impression of what he thinks.

I love Stefan's podcast.

Big thing to understand is that there is duopoly of views. There is short term practical goals and long term goals to achieve. 

He has great respect for writers on the right. Mainly because they have to work much harder than people on the left.

So long term he wants people to be raised right eliminating a lot of problems from society and bringing it in line with anarchist ideals.

Short term which he tends not to care about is voting. He tends to think voting does not work. In this case he thinks this is a 1 in a 1000 opportunity with Trump. He has criticized Trump as well. But since there is so much lefty lies out there about Trump he finds he has a lot of material to write.

Rloveution has always had a big contingent of lefties and a lot of libertarians easily get sidetracked in lefty politics. So it is no surprise that this forum is spammed by former Clinton supporters and people who argue with emotion.

He certainly changed his views on the groups he thinks are damaging to his long term goals. He cooled significantly on left atheists and warmed towards family values Christians.

Honestly I went through the same journey because he is a big influence on my thinking.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> It bothers me that supposedly rational people would actually invest the time to listen to this douche...
> 
> But whadda I know?


I don't get why people on this forum care about this guy.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> He's basically totally flipped his mindset into supporting strong borders, strong communities and cultural values, and even a strong religion. He now regularly makes videos on the genetics of crime and the heritability of intelligence, and virulently supports Donald Trump.
> 
> So did he just go insane?


Yes, but _long_ before his turn to Trumpism...

He's always been a charlatan/nutter, who made libertarians look bad by association.

So, good riddance, I say; if the alt-right wants him, they can have him.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## ProIndividual

He went from philosopher to sophist, and is clearly putting out click bait. I think he has less of a conscience and scruples than he puts on in his parenting videos. That said, I still look through his new videos from time to time, as he does good work and interviews on some subjects still, like his Whitaker interview on anti-depressants and the scientific evidence that psychiatry has something like 70% of their claims wrapped up in experiments that can't be repeated (which makes them pseudoscience).

----------


## undergroundrr

He used to back up his points with assertions, but now it's all kneejerk prejudices and confirmation bias.

For a while, every time he took a provocative stance against a seemingly self-evident libertarian dictum, I used to be interested in what he had to say.  But it was always sensationalist and incoherent.  His recent attempts to exonerate trump on intent to kill terrorist relatives was particularly ham-fisted.  He's simply had a big change of heart over the last several years.  I guess it's understandable for anybody who's been swimming against the stream for an extended period.

I'll still check him out from time to time.  Unfortunately, I have a feeling he won't back down from the trump thing.  And it's a shame because endorsing trump is a wholesale abandonment of the NAP, which Molyneux used to be quite eloquent in defending.

He used to be pretty brilliant.  Although I haven't listened to it in a while, I think my memory is accurate that this was an amazing piece of oratory -

----------


## FindLiberty

Well, I like both Molyneux and Trump (each for different reasons).

The spirit and tone of RPF has darkened ever since Rand Paul left the election 
and that was long after the energy level dropped when Ron Paul retired. 

IDK 

Take care as you re-focus...

----------


## dannno

It bothered me at first until I took the time to listen to his arguments and hear some of the experts he has on. I don't agree with him on everything, but I think he provides a good basis for his views and he helps people think about the situation a little more in depth. Society largely sees these issues on a very shallow and superficial level that has been engrained in us for a few decades. 

He still has similar beliefs as he had before, but he used to think we had a lot of time. He thought we could enact change over generations by being peaceful parents.

Now he sees a crossroads where society is destroying itself at a fast pace and so he went and looked for the cause.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm not part of some "world government crowd"....I'm just anti-alt-right crowd.  And proud of it.


There were 2 options....  useful idiots to the globalists was the second one.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## fisharmor

> He went from philosopher to sophist, and is clearly putting out click bait.


This.
He has tapped into the current zeitgeist.  He's probably making a decent living doing it, too.

I listened to a couple of his anti-brown-people rants earlier on, and I found them to be much better informed than any anti-brown-people rants I've read here, and yet entirely dependent on statistics.
You know what they say... there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I'm monumentally unsurprised LE is apparently a fan now.

----------


## Devilish

It seems no one here condemning Stef actually challenged his evidence or assertions, just his conclusions.

If you have the wrong opinions, you're a pariah. This is the PC mindset. Everyone must have a little censor sitting in their heads.
It doesn't matter what you think or what the evidence says as long as you come to the conclusion that open borders is good.


_

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## Devilish

> is it open border that bothers you? Or the color of the skin of those who come through the border?


This notion that race is only skin color is the exact assertion that Stefan has rejected. Just as you can't say that the only difference between a Poodle and a German Shepherd is fur color. Stefan has provided evidence that a whole host of factors including height, weight, heart rate, susceptibility to disease, IQ, testosterone levels, levels of criminality....etc. all have large genetic contributions and are not equally distributed between ethnicities.  

This exact same Demographic trend is occurring in Europe. The native population is eroding quickly and ultra-high birth rate immigrant groups are taking over. If it's not reversed, we could lose 30+ unique European ethnicities.

The average IQ of a Hispanic man is 88. Hispanic's average crime rate is far above that of whites, (although far lower than that of blacks). Hispanics in general prefer a larger government with more services, which is why the Democrats are bringing them in. 


__

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

I have no life, and he makes videos on interesting subjects so I know as well as anyone his "logic". 

Essentially, he believes we are headed for a real "SHTF" type situation in the not to distant future. He looks around and sees how all the minorities are being indoctrinated to "hate" whitey, etc....  Essentially he's concluded $#@! is gonna get real and under a leftist government like Hillary, or Bernie, the radical left that flames this racial dividie and fuels Feminist Extremists will just promote the quickening of the destruction. Trump in his view is likely the last chance to turn the ship around and slow the slide into hell, as the demographic makeup in the US is RAPIDLY shifting to favor Hispanics, and Hispanics are very very very tilted towards the left, and all polls show they are very pro big government and wealth redistribution etc..... So, if Hillary gets elected and serves 8 years, you might as well never run a conservative again, as you'll have a near impossible task of getting elected, especially after a radical like Hillary is done with 8 years of race baiting. Also he likes how Trump isn't fearful of the media, who in concert with the left promote many false narratives with impunity. At least Trump doesn't hate "Whitey", Trump doesn't hate you just because you made a bit of money. Trumps not going to kneel to La Raza, etc.. Also Trump has a history of being anti-war. 

Trump might not be an anarchist or libertarian, but he AINT a Hillary. 

I tend to agree with him, except I don't believe the country is salvageable at all. I think the victim narrative cancer is to entrenched, the demographics have already changed far to much, etc.... We are going to be a socialist $#@!hole in less than 30 years. We lost. But he thinks Trump might system shock the nation out of a coma, I don't have is optimism. 

That's just an extremely partial list. There are more.

----------


## robert68

Someone who relies exclusively on YouTube videos to express his views is afraid of the criticism they would get if put in writing where they are quickly readable and reproducible.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

> Someone who relies exclusively on YouTube videos to express his views is afraid of the criticism they would get if put in writing where they are quickly readable and reproducible.


What? He has several books. He'll have you on the show most likely if you want to refute his claims.

----------


## robert68

> What? He has several books. *He'll have you on the show most likely if you want to refute his claims.*


His blog and Facebook don't have articles, only a link to his videos. Someone who respects you doesn't require you to spend a boring hour listen to him cover one topic. He surely doesn't/can't do the same for his viewers.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This.
> He has tapped into the current zeitgeist.  He's probably making a decent living doing it, too.
> *
> I listened to a couple of his anti-brown-people rants earlier on, and I found them to be much better informed than any anti-brown-people rants I've read here, and yet entirely dependent on statistics.*
> You know what they say... there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
> 
> I'm monumentally unsurprised LE is apparently a fan now.


Are they all stats-based? I've heard 1 or 2, and I seem to recall him getting into other social sciences' approach to the issue. Regardless, if he were more concise and less rambly I'd appreciate what he does more.

----------


## Murray N Rothbard

> He went from philosopher to sophist, and is *clearly putting out click bait. I think he has less of a conscience and scruples than he puts on in his parenting videos.* That said, I still look through his new videos from time to time, as he does good work and interviews on some subjects still, like his Whitaker interview on anti-depressants and the scientific evidence that psychiatry has something like 70% of their claims wrapped up in experiments that can't be repeated (which makes them pseudoscience).


Agree 100% with this. He's looking out for his bottom line. Philosophy/politics are now the means to an end. What really makes it a disgrace is it comes after he's already shown for years an understanding of and personal commitment to things like objectivity and Libertarian principles. He knew better. 

Reminds me what is meant by the phrase, "_Tu ne cede malis_"...

----------


## dannno

> Agree 100% with this. He's looking out for his bottom line. Philosophy/politics are now the means to an end. What really makes it a disgrace is it comes after he's already shown for years an understanding of and personal commitment to things like objectivity and Libertarian principles. He knew better. 
> 
> Reminds me what is meant by the phrase, "_Tu ne cede malis_"...


He's still an anarchist, he is just one of those anarchists who finally decided to dive into the realm of how to save us from disaster in the short term through the statist paradigm since anarchy doesn't appear to be a viable option at the moment.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## Devilish

> Ain't White Nationalism grand, RPFs?


I wonder, would you be using the same language if white people were outbreeding the world, spilling into Africa and gradually displacing the native black population? This is what was happening to a certain extent during colonialism, which is now widely condemned as a genocidal racist monstrosity. 

If it's genocide when it happens to one group, why isn't it genocide when it happens to another?


_

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## silverhandorder

> Ain't White Nationalism grand, RPFs?


No different than lefty bias. Some people like white people and don't like how they are treated unfairly. Others like lefty jazz hands and feel bad for cis gendered whatevers and just can't stand it when Trump uses word Mexican. One is really bad and that is lefty leanings.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## silverhandorder

> I like white people. I just don't *hate* people who aren't white.


And who does hate? Certainly not me or Trump.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## ProIndividual

All racial pride is collectivist thinking. You shouldn't have pride in that which you never chose or earned...it's not healthy, imo.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

I, and most people on this forum, are against all racism, no matter the source or the place.  Racism against whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa is equally as immoral as racism against blacks and Hispanics in America.

----------


## silverhandorder

> I, and most people on this forum, are against all racism, no matter the source or the place.  Racism against whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa is equally as immoral as racism against blacks and Hispanics in America.


LOL compared to those countries what happens in America is not racism as far as white towards black is concerned.

----------


## Danke

> I, and most people on this forum, are against all racism, no matter the source or the place.  Racism against whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa is equally as immoral as racism against blacks and Hispanics in America.


Maybe in the past. But there is more discrimination against anyone who is white and particularly male in America.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> After being convinced of the following precepts:
> -Crime is related to genetics


It is.



> -IQ is related to genetics


It is.



> -Cultural compatibility is necessary for a free society, and also largely genetic


This is so obvious, it should be self-evident.

Molyneux is just accepting the reality that race is biological, and that liberty doesn't exist in a vacuum. A libertarian society is going to be majority white. There's no way around that. Despite what the men of the "Enlightenment" thought, the supposedly "universal" values are not universal, and the values themselves are heritable.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> All racial pride is collectivist thinking. You shouldn't have pride in that which you never chose or earned...it's not healthy, imo.


I'm glad that libertarians have come to the point where we're answering complicated sociological questions with comedians. You guys have more in common with the progs than you think...

----------


## AuH20

Of course, it's the natural progression from the hive mind that we have been conditioned to acquiesce to. Molyneux is starting to connect the dots in terms of identifying the wellspring of freedom in the world.  Liberty based initiatives thrive in specific cultural conditions as opposed to other regions of the world. 'No culture = no freedom' in the long run.

----------


## Danke

> Of course, it's the natural progression from the hive mind that we have been conditioned to acquiesce to. Molyneux is starting to connect the dots in terms of identifying the wellspring of freedom in the world.  Liberty based initiatives thrive in specific cultural conditions as opposed to other regions of the world. 'No culture = no freedom' in the long run.


 Welcome back.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Of course, it's the natural progression from the hive mind that we have been conditioned to acquiesce to. Molyneux is starting to connect the dots in terms of identifying the wellspring of freedom in the world.  Liberty based initiatives thrive in specific cultural conditions as opposed to other regions of the world. 'No culture = no freedom' in the long run.


So, then, how would you explain the massive growth in government in the US prior to 1965 (i.e. when virtually all voters were Europeans)?

The crucial turn in the US and elsewhere in the West occurred in the early 20th century, long before mass third world immigration.

The Jacobins were white; the bolsheviks were white; the NAZIs were white.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm glad that libertarians have come to the point where we're answering complicated sociological questions with comedians. You guys have more in common with the progs than you think...


Typical collectivist understandings of anything are not "complicated". A Carlin routine is about all the response they merit.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So, then, how would you explain the massive growth in government in the US prior to 1965 (i.e. when virtually all voters were Europeans)?
> 
> The crucial turn in the US and elsewhere in the West occurred in the early 20th century, long before mass third world immigration.
> 
> The Jacobins were white; *the bolsheviks were white*; the NAZIs were white.


Also slavs-dramatically different in ethnicity, worldview, and most everything else than western Europeans.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

No surprise there. The only libertarian/conservative white men I know immune from the race science trap are Christians for the most part. Its a divide and conquer tactic.

----------


## AuH20

> So, then, how would you explain the massive growth in government in the US prior to 1965 (i.e. when virtually all voters were Europeans)?
> 
> The crucial turn in the US and elsewhere in the West occurred in the early 20th century, long before mass third world immigration.
> 
> The Jacobins were white; the bolsheviks were white; the NAZIs were white.


Mass industrialization and the primacy of the jew in world affairs created hotbeds for the state to grow and advance. Rampant urbanization wiped the collective memory bank clean of the harsh lessons of the past. Thomas Jefferson wrote about this phenomenon extensively when a detached, unaccountable consensus takes root in large megacities. 

Secondly, you're conflating white with western culture. So-called 'Whites' are merely the primary vessels for the generational retention and dissemination of what we know as Western Civilization.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> Also slavs-dramatically different in ethnicity, worldview, and most everything else than western Europeans.


There were powerful communist parties in Spain and Germany too

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> So, then, how would you explain the massive growth in government in the US prior to 1965 (i.e. when virtually all voters were Europeans)?
> 
> The crucial turn in the US and elsewhere in the West occurred in the early 20th century, long before mass third world immigration.
> 
> The Jacobins were white; the bolsheviks were white; the NAZIs were white.


My friend, you cannot out-reason the bitterness and hatred.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> Typical collectivist understandings of anything are not "complicated". A Carlin routine is about all the response they merit.


the Right wing collectivists remind me of an intro poly sci course. Very superficial understanding of politics and sociology LOADED with their personal projections of race-consciousness. Even Marxism is more intellectual than that. You have to pretend like there are no puppet masters and just focus on the puppets(nation states and ethnic groups) to really fall for it.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Typical collectivist understandings of anything are not "complicated". A Carlin routine is about all the response they merit.


Ethnic identity is not some arbitrary thing, plucked out of the ether. It's inherent to humanity, and it's one of the main reasons civilization has been able to come along as far as it has. It is the outgrowth of family identity. It's no more foolish to be proud of your people, than it is to be proud of your grandfather.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Ethnic identity is not some arbitrary thing, plucked out of the ether. It's inherent to humanity, and it's one of the main reasons civilization has been able to come along as far as it has. It is the outgrowth of family identity. It's no more foolish to be proud of your people, than it is to be proud of your grandfather.


So, should I feel some sort of loyalty to my very distant cousins scattered around Northern and Central Europe?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Stefan says some good an insightful things, and Stefan says some stupid and obtuse things.  My problem with Stefan is not that he says both smart and stupid things -- I think every human on Earth does that -- my problem with Stefan is he takes an hour to deliver around ten minutes worth of information.

----------


## AuH20

> So, should I feel some sort of loyalty to my very distant cousins scattered around Northern and Central Europe?


Not really. They aren't the same people. Those are zombies. White Scandinavians may have worse political leanings than Mexicans.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> So, should I feel some sort of loyalty to my very distant cousins scattered around Northern and Central Europe?


You can feel loyalty to whomever. Social trust is very important for a functional civilization, and ethnic solidarity is important to social trust.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> You can feel loyalty to whomever. Social trust is very important for a functional civilization, and ethnic solidarity is important to social trust.


Should I show solidarity with socialist whites in Vermont?

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Should I show solidarity with socialist whites in Vermont?


I answered that already.

----------


## FindLiberty

Diversity is strength (so they say)

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Diversity is strength (so they say)


I'm still waiting for a single scrap of evidence justifying this point of view.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ethnic identity is not some arbitrary thing, plucked out of the ether. It's inherent to humanity, and it's one of the main reasons civilization has been able to come along as far as it has. It is the outgrowth of family identity. *It's no more foolish to be proud of your people, than it is to be proud of your grandfather*.


Nonsense. Why would you be "proud" of a bunch of people you have never met? I actually knew my grandfather(memory eternal). What you're saying is almost as absurd as Nationalism. SMFH. It's this mentality that keeps Germans in perpetual shame of themselves...because Holocaust. Absurd all around.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I'm still waiting for a single scrap of evidence justifying this point of view.


I've yet to see a scrap of evidence justifying the opposing point of view. 

Western civilization arose among an ethnically homogeneous population, sure.

But it also began its decline under that same ethnically homogeneous population.

Is there any empirical evidence showing a statistically significant correlation between the two factors?

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Nonsense. Why would you be "proud" of a bunch of people you have never met? I actually knew my grandfather(memory eternal). What you're saying is almost as absurd as Nationalism. SMFH. It's this mentality that keeps Germans in perpetual shame of themselves...because Holocaust. Absurd all around.


My great-grandfather was born dirt-poor in rural Oklahoma. He had no father, and his mother abandoned him. He was on his own since the age of 9. He put himself through medical school, got three different medical degrees, became a well-known doctor in his areas, and would give free care for people who couldn't afford it. He was a great man. I'm proud of my great-grandfather, but I never knew him. He died when my mom was just a child.

Ethnicities, races, nations aren't just groups of people who happen to live near each other. Until libertarians realize this, the philosophy will never expand. "You're an atomized, rootless individual with no connection to your people" is not something on which to base a movement.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> I've yet to see a scrap of evidence justifying the opposing point of view.


Then you're not looking:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert...in_communities

Putnam was a liberal who seriously thought that his studies of diversity would prove just how beneficial it is. The result of his massive, comprehensive study disturbed him so much he sat on the data for years.

"Diversity is our strength" is not the null hypothesis. This is especially true when you realize just how much state action is needed to enforce it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> My great-grandfather was born dirt-poor in rural Oklahoma. He had no father, and his mother abandoned him. He was on his own since the age of 9. He put himself through medical school, got three different medical degrees, became a well-known doctor in his areas, and would give free care for people who couldn't afford it. He was a great man. I'm proud of my great-grandfather, but I never knew him. He died when my mom was just a child.
> *
> Ethnicities, races, nations aren't just groups of people who happen to live near each other. Until libertarians realize this, the philosophy will never expand. "You're an atomized, rootless individual with no connection to your people" is not something on which to base a movement.*


What does that have to do with libertarians? Most libertarians recognize individuals' rights to associate. What you say about nations is more applicable to the Old World. "Russian" is both a nation and an ethnicity-usually dated back to Kievan Rus' or so. Various other nations have similar stories. Only "indigenous" people in 'Murica can make a similar claim.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So, then, how would you explain the massive growth in government in the US prior to 1965 (i.e. when virtually all voters were Europeans)?
> 
> The crucial turn in the US and elsewhere in the West occurred in the early 20th century, long before mass third world immigration.
> 
> The Jacobins were white; the bolsheviks were white; the NAZIs were white.


You are looking at sociology(praxeology) as if it were a math problem, or a logic puzzle.  OK, that's fine; I have that tendency/ability too -- that's how one gets to be a libertarian (one way, the main way).

Here's the thing: you do that, it will spit out the best political policy answers for you. Great. Accept these axioms, here's the right answer. But alone it's not actually the best and most thorough way to look at the whole of all human action that way. Satisfying. Simple. True ( as long as you choose the right axioms). The "reduce to a math problem" method is all those things. But complete it is not. 

Furthermore, crucially: if you are going to play the math problem game, you must be very carefully to get the programming right. Actually be logical. Carry those ones. Etc.

But this post, the essence of which you've repeated many, many times, has a logical screw lose and rattling around. I mean, it's fine if you are arguing against the following belief:

"White Europens are perfect and awesome in every way. Whenever they get together, including at any and all times in history and prehistory, they institute pure Rothbardian libertarianism and utopia ensues." 

Now _that_ belief you have totally demolished with this post, each time you have repeated it. Your post addresses that belief perfectly, it's right on point, and it seems to pretty effectively refute it.  So: right on!  That's great!  But..... I don't think that anyone holds that belief. But anyone who does, you sure showed them!  White people are _not_ perfect!!  Who knew!

AuH2O's original point, though, it turns out, was: *culture matters*. (It was not, shocking I know, that white people never do anything wrong and are perfect and wonderful).  I would agree that culture is essential to liberty, I think every sensible person would agree, and it's really quite obviously true. 

So here is the answer to the riddle you raised: while Europeans were still white as always in 1960, their culture was not as it always was. It had changed. It had fallen off a cliff, to put it bluntly. 

That is the very large loose screw very loudly and unmistakeable rattling around in this repeated post of yours. Cultures change. Cultures can decline. In fact, it seems they always do, from the Sumerians, to the Egyptians, to the 500 BC Ganges civilization, to the Chinese,  and the northern European barbarians are just the latest. And when a culture declines, the civ it was undergirding collapses (after a few hundred years) and then that people are never the same again. Things are never the same, never brilliant and creative as that people's first great civilization. 

And liberty becomes priority Zip, by the way, post-collapse. 

All in all it's sad, it's very, very sad.  If we can somehow prevent our own collapse, that would be a miracle, unprecedented (save for Enoch?), and the most important calling we could undertake.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Then you're not looking:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert...in_communities
> 
> Putnam was a liberal who seriously thought that his studies of diversity would prove just how beneficial it is. The result of his massive, comprehensive study disturbed him so much he sat on the data for years.
> 
> "Diversity is our strength" is not the null hypothesis. This is especially true when you realize just how much state action is needed to enforce it.


According to the link you posted, that study demonstrated that ethnic homogeneity led to higher "trust" among people in the community. 

Lower trust was associated with:




> Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and  knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and  social reform groups.Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).Less likelihood of working on a community project.Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.Fewer close friends and confidants.Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".


...that's it?

_That's_ the big threat to civilization?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So here is the answer to the riddle you raised: while Europeans were still white as always in 1960, their culture was not as it always was. It had changed. It had fallen off a cliff, to put it bluntly.


Was this caused by a change in their genes?

If not, does this square with the belief expressed here by many that culture is largely genetic?

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> According to the link you posted, that study demonstrated that ethnic homogeneity led to higher "trust" among people in the community. 
> 
> Lower trust was associated with:
> 
> 
> 
> ...that's it?
> 
> _That's_ the big threat to civilization?


It can be if it reaches a nadir. You should actually read the study, and the book Bowling Alone. The consequences might seem innocuous when listed on Wikipedia in single sentences, but the effects can be very damaging.

Regardless, you're moving the goalposts. I said there's no evidence that "diversity is our strength", you said there's no evidence that it isn't. There is. Quite a bit of it, actually. 

Diversity being a good thing is a propagandistic political mantra. It's never been true and it's even less true in a democratic society. I don't see any reason why civilizations should have to suffer through the drawbacks of diversity because you don't consider it a "threat to civilization".

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> So, then, how would you explain the massive growth in government in the US prior to 1965 (i.e. when virtually all voters were Europeans)?
> 
> The crucial turn in the US and elsewhere in the West occurred in the early 20th century, long before mass third world immigration..


We had a mass migration of banksters into the country, and they created The Fed.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Was this caused by a change in their genes?
> 
> If not, does this square with the belief expressed here by many that culture is largely genetic?


Culture is extremely complicated. I don't know what your theory is regarding what culture is and is not and what causes it and what is related to it.  But the more complicated your theory is, the more likely that it's true. At least partially true.

I think it's safe to say that genetics plays _some_ role in culture. Just as it does in nearly everything else involving live creatures. I've yet to hear of any symphonies written by marmots. Why not?  Bottom line: their genes are different. Anyway, safe to say genetics is one factor, among many, many factors, in a highly  elaborate, complicated apparatus. You're trying to reduce everything down to black and white. Where's the subtlety?  Where's the complexity?

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Was this caused by a change in their genes?
> 
> If not, does this square with the belief expressed here by many that culture is largely genetic?


Political opinions being heritable doesn't contradict the idea that environment can change culture.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It can be if it reaches a nadir. You should actually read the study, and the book Bowling Alone. The consequences might seem innocuous when listed on Wikipedia in single sentences, but the effects can be very damaging.
> 
> Regardless, you're moving the goalposts. I said there's no evidence that "diversity is our strength", you said there's no evidence that it isn't. There is. Quite a bit of it, actually.


No, we're just talking about different things.

I thought you were attributing to diversity much more serious ills than those listed.




> Diversity being a good thing is a propagandistic political mantra. It's never been true and it's even less true in a democratic society. I don't see any reason why civilizations should have to suffer through the drawbacks of diversity because you don't consider it a "threat to civilization".


I've never argued that diversity is good.

I've only ever argued against the claim of the nationalists that it represents some kind of threat to civilization.

...which tripe I find especially annoying since those same nationalists are generally advocating socialism (i.e. a genuine threat to civilization).

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Political opinions being heritable doesn't contradict the idea that environment can change culture.


Any evidence that Europeans are genetically predisposed to have better (more libertarian) political opinions?

...that is the thesis, no?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Culture is extremely complicated. I do know know what your theory is regarding what culture is and is not and what causes it and what is related to it.  But the more complicated your theory is, the more likely that it's true. At least partially true.
> 
> I think it's safe to say that genetics plays _some_ role in culture. Just as it does in nearly everything else involving live creatures. I've yet to hear of any symphonies written by marmots. Why not?  Bottom line: their genes are different. Anyway, safe to say genetics is one factor, among many, many factors, in a highly  elaborate, complicated apparatus. You're trying to reduce everything down to black and white. Where's the subtlety?  Where's the complexity?


Your thesis is that Europeans are genetically predisposed to have a culture which is more amenable to liberty, correct?

If not, then what?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Was this caused by a change in their genes?
> 
> If not, does this square with the belief expressed here by many that culture is largely genetic?


By the way, to answer your question a little better, just in case we are actually interested in what caused and is causing the collapse of our culture, because it seems *really important* to me to say the least:

Prosperity. A prosperous, then decadent, lifestyle and its biological consequences, caused the cultural decline.

And I don't know who on RPF you're thinking of that supposedly thinks culture is all just caused genetically, but I'm pretty sure the real answer is: no one.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

....

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Your thesis is that Europeans are genetically pre-disposed to have a culture which is more amenable to liberty, correct?
> 
> If not, then what?


 Well, at the current time, that is clearly, empirically, true. (As for "genetically" or not, that's not as clear and provable).

Has that _always_ been the case?

Aha.....

All these great civilizations, in their day, had a lot of creative ideas about how to construct a society.  _In their day._ It's come and gone. They invented ideas about freedom, justice, and law that we, the northern European barbarians, have built upon.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> By the way, to answer your question a little better....
> 
> Prosperity. A prosperous, then decadent, lifestyle and its biological consequences, caused the cultural decline.


Explain the mechanism.

It's  not clear how wealth causes cultural decline (whatever precisely you  mean by that), nor how this cultural decline causes the state to grow. 




> And I don't know who on RPF you're thinking of that supposedly  thinks culture is all just caused genetically, but I'm pretty sure the  real answer is: no one.


I said largely genetic, not all genetic.

As for that...




> Originally Posted by Devilish
> 
> 
> Cultural  compatibility is necessary for a free society, and also largely  genetic
> 
> 
> This is so obvious, it should be self-evident.
> 
> Molyneux is just accepting the reality that race is biological, and that  liberty doesn't exist in a vacuum. A libertarian society is going to be  majority white. There's no way around that. Despite what the men of the  "Enlightenment" thought, the supposedly "universal" values are not  universal, and the values themselves are heritable.


Do you, Helmuth, agree with the above?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Explain the mechanism.


 See post here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6238360

It's all in the book Biohistory, which is mind-blowing and is the cutting edge of historical and praxeological research. 





> Do you, Helmuth, agree with the above?


You again are, to my perspective, trying to simplify everything down to black and white, in order to avoid the hard thinking required by complexity. Or, in this case specifically,: in order to try to determine whether I am a Bad Guy whom you must hate or a Good Guy whom you should love.

Sorry, you'll just have to decide that on your own.  Litmus tests are for chemicals, not human beings, as far as I can tell.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> See post here:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6238360


Your post:




> Well, it's science, not politics, so it doesn't come with an answer.   Maybe there is no solution.  Maybe all successful, creative  civilizations are destined to become prosperous and then to collapse.   They all have so far!
> 
> That's the bad news.
> 
> The good news is: mankind already has come up with lots of solutions.  Otherwise, we would never have risen _this_ far.  See, it really doesn't take nanotechnology and quantum computers to reach a toxic level of prosperity.  _Crop rotation_ is plenty more than enough.  But humans have developed *cultural technologies* that combat our natural tendencies and avert reversion to bare subsistence.
> 
> Got to back up and lay out the basic theory.
> 
> Look at gibbons.  They live in a highly food-restricted environment.  So  they have developed a temperament suited for that.  Unlike other  primates, they work hard.    Even when they're not hungry, they keep  working.  They are constantly gathering food.  They're the Calvinist  Work Ethic poster children of the animal world.  They have few children,  they spend tons of time raising them.  Family values, no day care for  them.  The food restriction -- not famines, just a constant low-level  hunger -- activates these behaviors.
> ...


Where in that post is there an explanation of how prosperity causes the state to grow?




> You again are, to my perspective, trying to simplify everything down to black and white, in order to avoid the hard thinking required by complexity. Or, in this case specifically,: in order to try to determine whether I am a Bad Guy whom you must hate or a Good Guy whom you should love.
> 
> Sorry, you'll just have to decide that on your own.  Litmus tests are for chemicals, not human beings, as far as I can tell.


If you can't/won't clarify your own thesis, so be it, but then there's nothing else to say.

----------


## anaconda

The few Youtubes I have viewed by Molyneux were terrific. Especially one on the history of slavery.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Any evidence that Europeans are genetically predisposed to have better (more libertarian) political opinions?
> 
> ...that is the thesis, no?


There's a significant and growing body of evidence to suggest that political opinions are heritable:

http://www.luisarroyo.com/wp-content...ca-Hatemi1.pdf

http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/ge...-life-time.pdf

https://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00915.x

There's also clear differences in individualism between populations:

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...individualism/

It's not a question that's been studied anywhere near enough, but the studies there are have clear implications.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Does it bother anybody here that Stefan Molyneux, who used to be a hard core anarcho-capitalist, is now essentially a nationalist?
> 
> After being convinced of the following precepts:
> -Crime is related to genetics
> -IQ is related to genetics
> -Cultural compatibility is necessary for a free society, and also largely genetic
> 
> He's basically totally flipped his mindset into supporting strong borders, strong communities and cultural values, and even a strong religion. He now regularly makes videos on the genetics of crime and the heritability of intelligence, and virulently supports Donald Trump.
> 
> So did he just go insane? Or does he have a point?



You are just mad people no longer believe lies like we are all interchangeable, you are mad he has a bigger following

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I didn't listen to him then and I'm not going to listen to him now.


Why not listen to his points?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> is it open border that bothers you? Or the color of the skin of those who come through the border?


Yeah it has nothing to do with what they believe, how they vote, right?

----------


## juleswin

> The few Youtubes I have viewed by Molyneux were terrific. Especially one on the history of slavery.


Really? the one where he concluded that Irish indentured servants had it worse than black slaves in America. The one where he thought because black slaves cost money and Irish indentured servants didn't cost anything meant that blacks were treated better than the Irish workers?

Jesus Christ, I concede that some of the early videos about the school system, unions were kinda good. All though I have to go back and re watch them now I know he is agenda driven and he massages govt data to fit his agenda.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## tod evans

> Why not listen to his points?


Because he's both long winded and condescending, neither trait I find bearable. 

His mannerisms also irk me to the point of blows.

I do on occasion ask others to translate his verbal diarrhea into a brief synopsis in order to try and understand what the discussion is about, this issue isn't one of those times, I don't care.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Really? the one where he concluded that Irish indentured servants had it worse than black slaves in America. The one where he thought because black slaves cost money and Irish indentured servants didn't cost anything meant that blacks were treated better than the Irish workers?
> 
> Jesus Christ, I concede that some of the early videos about the school system, unions were kinda good. All though I have to go back and re watch them now I know he is agenda driven and he massages govt data to fit his agenda.


Alot of people do not know that about the indentured servants.




> You've made it quite clear that Whiteness is very important to you in other posts. Don't bother putting lipstick on that pig now.


What is wrong with caring about the well being of Liberty minded members of my race?

Notice how you do not talk about other groups, how they vote, or what their values are?

I wonder why?




> Because he's both long winded and condescending, neither trait I find bearable. 
> 
> His mannerisms also irk me to the point of blows.
> 
> I do on occasion ask others to translate his verbal diarrhea into a brief synopsis in order to try and understand what the discussion is about, this issue isn't one of those times, I don't care.


You are only missing out.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Nonsense. Why would you be "proud" of a bunch of people you have never met? I actually knew my grandfather(memory eternal). What you're saying is almost as absurd as Nationalism. SMFH. It's this mentality that keeps Germans in perpetual shame of themselves...because Holocaust. Absurd all around.


Because they created systems and ideas that have allowed us to have a great life, and had it not been for them we would not enjoy anything close to what we have now.

No, what keeps the Germans in a state of shame is allow themselves to feel the blame for things others did and other nations/groups did far worse. Anyone want to talk about Commie Death Camps? Why not?

So we can not take pride in the actions of our forefathers but we can always take the shame of their misdeeds? Yeah not happening.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## tod evans

> You are only missing out.


Did I ask for your opinion?

I'm not missing out on anything or anyone I give a $#@! about.

I explained fully my opinion of Molyneux and stated quite clearly that this issue is one which I don't care what he has to say about.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> According to the link you posted, that study demonstrated that ethnic homogeneity led to higher "trust" among people in the community. 
> 
> Lower trust was associated with:
> 
> 
> 
> ...that's it?
> 
> _That's_ the big threat to civilization?


Yeah never mind the higher rates of crime, higher cost of living, lower wages, higher cost/burden of regulations, and the loss of basic freedoms, right?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I've yet to see a scrap of evidence justifying the opposing point of view. 
> 
> Western civilization arose among an ethnically homogeneous population, sure.
> 
> But it also began its decline under that same ethnically homogeneous population.
> 
> Is there any empirical evidence showing a statistically significant correlation between the two factors?


So the massive non ethnically homogeneous groups that support the polices that are causing the decline is just coincidence, right?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I'll save you the trouble of mental gymnastics (I doubt you're capable.) I don't talk about groups because I don't lump people together. I'm an individual, and I treat others the same way...not as members of groups. 
> 
> Now, don't hurt yourself.



No but groups of people tend to share things in common, and it saves time to classify groups, but if you want to waste time and act all righteous because you do not engage in critical thinking so be it.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Did I ask for your opinion?
> 
> I'm not missing out on anything or anyone I give a $#@! about.
> 
> I explained fully my opinion of Molyneux and stated quite clearly that this issue is one which I don't care what he has to say about.


Are you mad he is better at red pilling the masses then you are?

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## tod evans

> Are you mad he is better at red pilling the masses then you are?


Kid "red pills" to me are Seconal.

If you'd like to have a discussion try to speak like a grown-up. 

I'm not "mad" about anything, in fact I'm amused when people come on here with the intention of sharing their years of knowledge and enlightened opinions...

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If you can't/won't clarify your own thesis, so be it, but then there's nothing else to say.


 It was not a very useful or interesting question.  It was not going to open up new vistas of my evolving thinking regarding culture to your view.




> Where in that post is there an explanation of how prosperity causes the state to grow?


 It explains how prosperity causes something much worse: the collapse of a civilization entirely.  The state is like a cancer on the civilization -- painful, ugly, unbearable, parasitic, torturous.  But the collapse of the civilization is even worse.  That's when the patient dies.  Better to have cancer and still be alive.

Anyway, state growth is also a symptom of the epigenetic temperamental changes brought on by the soft life.  In particular the building up of the welfare state cocoon.

But are you really interested in any of this?  It seems, again, that you are just desperate for some "thesis" as you put it, which you can then wildly oversimplify, reduce down to one sentence, and then proceed to "refute" by gems of enlightenment such as "white people are socialists, too!"

No, r3v, I think (and correct me if I'm wrong!) that you are not particularly interested in culture as the bulwark of liberty, not enthusiastic about restoring strong family values and traditional moral strictures, and in fact are highly skeptical that such puritanism would be beneficial, much less essential, to our cause.

So if you are *not interested* in values and culture, would I be wasting my breath talking to you in depth about values and culture?  Why yes, it does seem that I would be!  Again, if I have you all wrong, correct me.  Let me know: what do _you_ think about culture?  What's _your_ theory?  What's your practice?  Are you an old-fashioned family man?  A bohemian bachelor?  What's the ideal culture, in your opinion?  What moral values are key?  Does it matter to liberty and society, long-term?  Are some cultures more viable than others?  Are some more stable?

Let me know!  We can discuss until the cows come home.  But if you're just wanting me to spoon-feed you some very complex and nuanced and -- most importantly -- *ambiguous* ideas and data so that... why?  So that you can try to reduce it down to some decidedly non-ambiguous soundbite that amounts to:so then you can reject out-of-hand my whole existence, well count me out of that.  Just call me a racist -- you already know perfectly well I'm a racist anyway and are likely not going to change your mind -- and save us all some time.  Thanks.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> It was not a very useful or interesting question.  It was not going to open up new vistas of my evolving thinking regarding culture to your view.
> 
>  It explains how prosperity causes something much worse: the collapse of a civilization entirely.  The state is like a cancer on the civilization -- painful, ugly, unbearable, parasitic, torturous.  But the collapse of the civilization is even worse.  That's when the patient dies.  Better to have cancer and still be alive.
> 
> Anyway, state growth is also a symptom of the epigenetic temperamental changes brought on by the soft life.  In particular the building up of the welfare state cocoon.
> 
> But are you really interested in any of this?  It seems, again, that you are just desperate for some "thesis" as you put it, which you can then wildly oversimplify, reduce down to one sentence, and then proceed to "refute" by gems of enlightenment such as "white people are socialists, too!"
> 
> No, r3v, I think (and correct me if I'm wrong!) that you are not particularly interested in culture as the bulwark of liberty, not enthusiastic about restoring strong family values and traditional moral strictures, and in fact are highly skeptical that such puritanism would be beneficial, much less essential, to our cause.
> ...




This a million fold.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> @helmuth_hubener it's not a good sign when that one is agreeing with you. Put down the shovel.


So you have no point. I am shocked you are not screaming "racist" or making up things.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> This a million fold.


 Thanks, but just as a note I am not in agreement with everything that you post (of course, that's probably true of everyone!).  As I wrote above: a lot of the data we have is *ambiguous*.

----------


## acptulsa

> Yeah never mind the higher rates of crime, higher cost of living, lower wages, higher cost/burden of regulations, and the loss of basic freedoms, right?


I said in another thread that I personally know and know of many immigrants who come here not to spread that stuff, but to escape it.  And you avoid addressing this point in that thread, and instead repeat it here.

Any reason to assume you're doing something other than spamming us?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> @helmuth_hubener it's not a good sign when that one is agreeing with you. Put down the shovel.


Well yes, but really he just agrees with me on immigration.  I think that is ROL's main issue.

Now on the other side of the immigration issue is one ZippyJuan -- utter Big Government statist leftist.  So... which poison would you recommend I choose?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Thanks, but just as a note I am not in agreement with everything that you post (of course, that's probably true of everyone!).  As I wrote above: a lot of the data we have is *ambiguous*.


At least we have data, they have nothing more then emotionalism.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I said in another thread that I personally know and know of many immigrants who come here not to spread that stuff, but to escape it.  And you avoid addressing this point in that thread, and instead repeat it here.
> 
> Any reason to assume you're doing something other than spamming us?



Yeah, anecdotal evidence fallacy. Data proves you wrong.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...tizens_do.html

----------


## acptulsa

> I said in another thread that I personally know and know of many immigrants who come here not to spread that stuff, but to escape it.  And you avoid addressing this point in that thread, and instead repeat it here.
> 
> Any reason to assume you're doing something other than spamming us?





> At least we have data, they have nothing more then emotionalism.


Do you?

Again:  Cough it up.




> Yeah, anecdotal evidence fallacy. Data proves you wrong.


Anecdotal evidence is nowhere near the fallacy that alleged evidence is.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Do you?
> 
> Again:  Cough it up.


http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...tizens_do.html

And acts of terrorism, which will include 2nd genners like the Fort Hood Shooter and Omar "Spray the gay away" Meteen.

----------


## acptulsa

> http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...tizens_do.html
> 
> And acts of terrorism, which will include 2nd genners like the Fort Hood Shooter and Omar "Spray the gay away" Meteen.


One, the article at that link is not specifically talking about acts of terror.  Two, that article is talking about rates when no one knows exactly how many illegal immigrants there are, so there is no way to calculate an accurate rate.  Three, that article is also talking about crimes committed by criminals who cross the border in the course of committing the crime; there is no reason in the world to think these criminals were trying to immigrate, their crime merely took them across the border.  Four, it goes without saying that illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crime than legal immigrants, and this is no reflection at all on the efficacy of legal immigration.  It also indicates that these people are no reflection on the views and political leanings of legal immigrants, which means none of it means a thing to your arguments against legal immigration.

If you want to argue that Trump's wall with its 'big beautiful door' is a better way to stop illegal immigration than the libertarian plan of cutting them off from all permits and benefits, then do it.  Otherwise, you're just repeating the tripe of propagandists and idiots.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> One, the article at that link is not specifically talking about acts of terror.  Two, that article is talking about rates when no one knows exactly how many illegal immigrants there are, so there is no way to calculate an accurate rate.  Three, that article is also talking about crimes committed by criminals who cross the border in the course of committing the crime; there is no reason in the world to think these criminals were trying to immigrate, their crime merely took them across the border.  Four, it goes without saying that illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crime than legal immigrants, and this is no reflection at all on the efficacy of legal immigration.  It also indicates that these people are no reflection on the views and political leanings of legal immigrants, which means none of it means a thing to your arguments against legal immigration.
> 
> If you want to argue that Trump's wall with its 'big beautiful door' is a better way to stop illegal immigration than the libertarian plan of cutting them off from all permits and benefits, then do it.  Otherwise, you're just repeating the tripe of propagandists and idiots.


So never mind the cost or the victims, classic run away, change the subject, or ignore.

Sure, it will have a door...For people to leave out of.

Well good luck with that, remember Prop 187? It would have ended welfare for illegals. Remember what happened then? Activist Judge threw it out.

So unless you can over ride the judges or scare them into not being the leftist douches they are then you have no plan other then to allow the 3rd world degeneration of America with is not going to happen.

----------


## acptulsa

> So never mind the cost or the victims, classic run away, change the subject, or ignore.
> 
> Sure, it will have a door...For people to leave out of.
> 
> Well good luck with that, remember Prop 187? It would have ended welfare for illegals. Remember what happened then? Activist Judge threw it out.
> 
> So unless you can over ride the judges or scare them into not being the leftist douches they are then you have no plan other then to allow the 3rd world degeneration of America with is not going to happen.


Oh, I don't live in California, and getting rid of that judge would be no problem at all here.  But that does not change the fact that walls, no matter how expensive, can be gotten around, and under, and over.

Even if you are such a creature of the past that you've never heard of airplanes, you've heard of tunnels and boats.

I'm a libertarian, and I will never be swayed by 'solutions' that cost a hell of a lot of money and will produce a hell of a lot of kickbacks, but will never work.  Dude's talking about building walls across of stretches of desert which are nearly impossible to drive, and completely impossible to cross by foot or hoof.  A wall is pablum for suckers.  It's not a plan, it's window dressing.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Oh, I don't live in California, and getting rid of that judge would be no problem at all here.  But that does not change the fact that walls, no matter how expensive, can be gotten around, and under, and over.
> 
> Even if you are such a creature of the past that you've never heard of airplanes, you've heard of tunnels and boats.


If it is not patrolled, yeah, if it is it will not. Look at the wall in Israel. It keeps people out and the ones who do make it over are put back on a plane and deported, no trial, not charges, nothing but a ride back.

They work.

Tunnels are detectable now,

http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanya...nel-detection/

People like you do not want walls because you know they will work, and ignore such new tech that will make them even better.

Our goal is to take out the main means of coming here, that is an open border, most can not afford such means, if they come on a visa we have a entry exit system.

----------


## acptulsa

You deny that airplanes make walls useless for keeping people from going one direction even as you admit that airplanes can be used to move people the other direction in spite of the wall.  Then you bring Israel into it as if Israel looks anything like our southern border and as if Israel is anything I want my nation to emulate.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It was not a very useful or interesting question.


I  can't imagine anything more useful in a debate than both sides making  clear their own positions, which is all I'm asking you to do. 




> It explains how prosperity causes something much worse: the  collapse of a civilization entirely.  The state is like a cancer on the  civilization -- painful, ugly, unbearable, parasitic, torturous.  But  the collapse of the civilization is even worse.  That's when the patient  dies.  Better to have cancer and still be alive.


All that's necessary for civilization is a state which efficiently secures property rights and does little else. 

To  quote a certain Scottish Calvinist who would no doubt be sympathetic to  your asceticism, despite not thinking it necessary for civilization:




> Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of  opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a  tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by  the natural course of things.


...




> IBut are you really interested in any of  this?  ...No, r3v, I think (and correct me if I'm wrong!) that you are  not particularly interested in culture as the bulwark of liberty, not  enthusiastic about restoring strong family values and traditional moral  strictures, and in fact are highly skeptical that such puritanism would  be beneficial, much less essential, to our cause.


That's right. As indicated above, what really matters (in building/maintaining civilization) is the behavior of the state. 

Private mores are peripheral. 




> So if you are *not interested* in values and  culture, would I be wasting my breath talking to you in depth about  values and culture?  Why yes, it does seem that I would be!  Again, if I  have you all wrong, correct me.  Let me know: what do _you_ think about culture?  What's _your_ theory?   What's your practice?  Are you an old-fashioned family man?  A  bohemian bachelor?  What's the ideal culture, in your opinion?  What  moral values are key?  Does it matter to liberty and society, long-term?   Are some cultures more viable than others?  Are some more  stable?


Given a market economy, the  problem resolves itself: i.e. persons with values which are too  dysfunctional simply do not survive.

And, inversely, a large welfare state will breed dysfunctional persons. 

Thus, as I said, the key factor is state policy.

P.S. By way of anticipating your next objection, no, state policy is not in turn determined by ideology. It is determined primarily by interest politics, with ideology having very little effect (at least on the important issues) in the long run. Why? For the same reason that anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-communism are utopian: namely, most human beings will put their own interests above what they perceive to be the common good (i.e. their ideology). Your h. puritanicus is as much a unicorn as h. sovieticus.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> There's a significant and growing body of evidence to suggest that political opinions are heritable:
> 
> http://www.luisarroyo.com/wp-content...ca-Hatemi1.pdf
> 
> http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/ge...-life-time.pdf
> 
> https://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00915.x
> 
> There's also clear differences in individualism between populations:
> ...


I'll review those when I have time and get back to you.

But I take it from your tentative attitude that the evidence for "white --> liberty" at this stage ranges from thin to non-existent?

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> I'll review those when I have time and get back to you.
> 
> But I take it from your tentative attitude that the evidence for "white --> liberty" at this stage ranges from thin to non-existent?


No one is arguing that. White societies all being libertarian is manifestly false, but that is not the claim that is being made.

Whites are more individualistc than other races and support smaller government at a higher rate than any other racial group. The first law of behavioral genetics is that most everything is heritable, and that includes personality traits. As such, individualism and propensities for smaller government are heritable. That is the argument, and there is good evidence for it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> No one is arguing that. White societies all being libertarian is manifestly false, but that is not the claim that is being made.
> 
> Whites are more individualistc than other races and support smaller government at a higher rate than any other racial group. The first law of behavioral genetics is that most everything is heritable, and that includes personality traits. As such, individualism and propensities for smaller government are heritable. That is the argument, and there is good evidence for it.


The underlined is exactly the claim in contention, for which I've seen no evidence.

Maybe I'll find it in the links you posted, though I doubt it; we'll see.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## acptulsa

> No one is arguing that. White societies all being libertarian is manifestly false, but that is not the claim that is being made.
> 
> Whites are more individualistc than other races and support smaller government at a higher rate than any other racial group. The first law of behavioral genetics is that most everything is heritable, and that includes personality traits. As such, individualism and propensities for smaller government are heritable. That is the argument, and there is good evidence for it.


Which must be why Europe is rife with socialism and Africa is awash with governments which tend to do nothing but take taxes, stage parades and sucker the U.S. into giving them aid.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> The underlined is exactly the claim in contention, for which I've seen no evidence.
> 
> Maybe I'll find it in the links you posted, though I doubt it; we'll see.


Sorry, that's a fact:








This is just a bit of the data that's out there. It is a thoroughly documented phenomenon; if you've "seen no evidence" you are, once again, not looking.

----------


## acptulsa

> Sorry, that's a fact:
> 
> This is just a bit of the data that's out there. It is a thoroughly documented phenomenon; if you've "seen no evidence" you are, once again, not looking.


How does that prove it's heritable and/or genetic?

Couldn't it just be a natural reaction to a perception that government hires more minority employees?  Wouldn't that be more reasonable given what has come about in Europe and Africa?

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> How does that prove it's heritable and/or genetic?
> 
> Couldn't it just be a natural reaction to a perception that government hires more minority employees? Wouldn't that be more reasonable given what has come about in Europe and Africa?


http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/pa...three_laws.pdf

All behavioral traits are heritable. If a difference between two populations is observed, that difference is, in part, genetic.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Sorry, that's a fact:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just a bit of the data that's out there. It is a thoroughly documented phenomenon; if you've "seen no evidence" you are, once again, not looking.


Polls are nice, but actual voting behavior is better, and that demonstrates very little if any difference between the races.

It could be that people aren't being honest when polled, and their true selves come out only when actually pulling the lever.

Or it could be that they like the slogan smaller government, but don't actually understand what it means. 

Or it could be that they both understand and favor smaller government, but are dumb enough to be conned into voting otherwise. 

It doesn't matter; either way, QED.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Polls are nice, but actual voting behavior is better, and that demonstrates very little if any difference between the races.
> 
> It could be that people aren't being honest when polled, and their true selves come out only when actually pulling the lever. 
> 
> Or it could be that whites genuinely do prefer smaller government, but are dumb enough to be conned into voting otherwise. 
> 
> It doesn't matter; either way, QED.


First of all, that is utterly false. I don't know how anyone can believe that. There are differences in voting patterns between the races:
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...016/04/15/253/

Secondly, I don't see why polls would be worse than voter data in the first place. Polls could contain people who refuse to vote because of idiosyncratic ethical restrictions, or they just don't see themselves represented anywhere among the candidates. As you must know, you don't have to look hard to find small government who fit into either or even both of those categories.

----------


## silverhandorder

I think IQ is heritable and IQ determines in large what type of culture you can have. 

I don't think behavior is heritable but certainly being raised in a bad culture will have an effect on the child.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I can't imagine anything more useful in a debate than both sides making clear their own positions


 I can: making clear what it is you are debating!  What you are contesting at all!  That is really super-useful!  And I can do that!  AuH2O's original point:

*Culture matters.  No culture = no liberty.*

Now a very honest response from you to that would have been:

*I don't care about culture.*

That's what I kind of guessed, and what you have now confirmed.  So great!  So, what's the debate again?  Am I supposed to persuade you of the importance of culture?  How would I go about that?  What would a "debate" about the question "does culture matter" look like?  I asked you several questions about your thoughts, opinions, and inclinations regarding culture, questions of the type that _could_ be potentially fruitful and interesting.  You flippantly totally skipped and ignored these questions.  And yet you're going to try to get all wound up and give me a hard time about not answering your single yes-or-no trap "question"?

Come on.

You have no interest in culture.  In depravity vs. morality.  You say "whatevs."  OK!  Got it!  I really do.  You are not a cultural conservative.  You don't think civilization requires all that "peripheral" rubbish at all.  So, thus, you are not going to have a sincere, interesting debate about those topics.  No more than you would have a great debate about the hormone levels of spidermoths.  Cannot happen.  So.... why are you engaging me?  Who knows, probably to smear or attack someone you don't like, like this Molyneux fellow.  But I have given you lots of words, hundreds of words, in a sincere, good-faith attempt to explain some of the basics of the intellectual framework I am working on.  So don't be playing "Oh I don't understand what your position is about culture and you refuse to clarify".  You won't say one word about your own position and opinions about culture, and you most certainly do not care one lick about mine.  *You just want to change topics and make it about race and immigration.*  Which are fine topics, but I'm not in the mood for it.  *How about you and RestorationOfLiberty have at it, since that is all either of you care about.*

----------


## silverhandorder

> Polls are nice, but actual voting behavior is better, and that demonstrates very little if any difference between the races.
> 
> It could be that people aren't being honest when polled, and their true selves come out only when actually pulling the lever.
> 
> Or it could be that they like the slogan smaller government, but don't actually understand what it means. 
> 
> Or it could be that they both understand and favor smaller government, but are dumb enough to be conned into voting otherwise. 
> 
> It doesn't matter; either way, QED.


African American's don't vote democrat?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> First of all, that is utterly false. I don't know how anyone can believe that.


In 2012, 98.3% of all voters voted for Romney/Obama. 

In 2008, 98.6% of all voters voted for McCain/Obama.

..etc

Where's this white liberty vote?




> Secondly, I don't see why polls would be worse than voter data in the first place. Polls could contain people who refuse to vote because of idiosyncratic ethical restrictions, or they just don't see themselves represented anywhere among the candidates. As you must know, you don't have to look hard to find small government who fit into either or even both of those categories.


If there are small government types out there who don't vote, they might as well not exist, as they have no effect on the outcome.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> African American's don't vote democrat?


Blacks overwhelmingly vote for Democratic leftists. 

Whites are fairly evenly split between Democratic leftists and Republican leftists. 

What's your point?

----------


## acptulsa

> All behavioral traits are heritable. If a difference between two populations is observed, that difference is, in part, genetic.


I don't think that word means what you think it means.  If genetics were the only factor, and both parents did x, their child would do x.

Go look at the study of identical twins raised separately some time.  You might learn what genetics are.




> Blacks overwhelmingly vote for Democratic leftists. 
> 
> Whites are fairly evenly split between Democratic leftists and Republican leftists. 
> 
> What's your point?


Furthermore, they have perfectly valid reasons for it.  Certain Republicans have spent the last fifty years pandering to racists, while the Democrats who used to do that went extinct.

That has nothing to do with size of government--except that it has allowed RINOs to get away with being RINOs, and to no small degree, has gotten Democrats the votes of fiscal conservatives who refuse to vote for race-baiters.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Blacks overwhelmingly vote for Democratic leftists. 
> 
> Whites are fairly evenly split between Democratic leftists and Republican leftists. 
> 
> What's your point?


If there was no difference blacks would be evenly split like whites. It seems whites are more liberty friendly.

And I have no problem with people who vote like me. I have a lot of problems with people who vote against me and especially on left/right split.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'm not making any recommendations. You choose whichever way *you* feel.  Incidentally, many of us have been challenging his opinions on immigration all morning today.  They're not pretty.


Well that's fine.  I would be more interested in your opinions than his.  Here's the thing: there's more to life than immigration policy.

And immigration policy, it turns out, is a particularly fruitless thing to debate or even discuss, as a person's position on it seems to be almost entirely dependent on his or her temperament and unconscious psychological causes, not rational deliberation.  The next time I debate the issue on RPF (_if_ I do) I will probably do it with myself.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> In 2012, 98.3% of all voters voted for Romney/Obama. 
> 
> In 2008, 98.6% of all voters voted for McCain/Obama.
> 
> ..etc
> 
> Where's this white liberty vote?


Look at the data. Whites tend to vote for who is perceived to be the smaller government candidate, and if only whites voted then the entire political landscape would be different and tend toward a smaller state:



The polling data and the voting data buttress one another quite we






> If there are small government types out there who don't vote, they might as well not exist, as they have no effect on the outcome.


That is an entirely separate question. We're talking about the heritability of political opinions, not strategy. As such, small state types who don't vote are every bit as important as those who do.

----------


## acptulsa

> If there was no difference blacks would be evenly split like whites. It seems whites are more liberty friendly.
> 
> And I have no problem with people who vote like me. I have a lot of problems with people who vote against me and especially on left/right split.


Then stop giving conservatives good reason to vote against conservatives by painting conservatives as race-baiters.

Then there really be no other variables in play and black conservatives will be able to happily vote with you.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> I don't think that word means what you think it means. If genetics were the only factor, and both parents did x, their child would do x.
> 
> Go look at the study of identical twins raised separately some time. You might learn what genetics are.


You don't know what "heritable" means. Not surprising.

----------


## tod evans

I enjoy visiting people of different cultures, coon-asses are particularly interesting and I love their cuisine...

I even enjoy the occasional foray into the land of the Yankee but I miss the hills after a matter of hours. 

Went to the Bay area in the early 70's to trade for some 25, that was interesting too...

Do my experiences make me culturally diverse?

----------


## acptulsa

> You don't know what "heritable" means. Not surprising.


You quote a post wherein I say nothing about the subject as proof I know nothing of it?

I said nothing about railroads in that post, either.  Go ahead and say I know nothing about them, I dare you...

----------


## silverhandorder

> Then stop giving conservatives good reason to vote against conservatives by painting conservatives as race-baiters.
> 
> Then there really be no other variables in play and black conservatives will be able to happily vote with you.


LOL no one believes what you just said. There is not the same rate of black conservatives as white conservatives. Democrats race bait. All you did here is aid them by race a baiting trump 24/7.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> You quote a post wherein I say nothing about the subject as proof I know nothing of it?
> 
> I said nothing about railroads in that post, either. Go ahead and say I know nothing about them, I dare you...


Oh dear God... Are you really this out of it? The topic being discussed is _the heritability of political opinion._ The post you responded to was about _that very topic!_  You don't even know what's being discussed from one moment to the next!

----------


## acptulsa

> LOL no one believes what you just said. There is not the same rate of black conservatives as white conservatives. Democrats race bait. All you did here is aid them by race a baiting trump 24/7.


Huh?




> Oh dear God... Are you really this out of it? The topic being discussed is _the heritability of political opinion._ The post you responded to was about _that very topic!_  You don't even know what's being discussed from one moment to the next!


Maybe if your buddies could speak English it would help.

----------


## TheCount

> immigration policy, it turns out, is a particularly fruitless thing to debate or even discuss, as *a person's position on it seems to be almost entirely dependent on his or her temperament and unconscious psychological causes*, not rational deliberation.


Except for yours, right?

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Maybe if your buddies could speak English it would help.


So you don't understand anything about the topic at hand,  don't know what "heritability" is and yet you stridently assert that I don't know what words mean and that I should read twin studies. The irony is that I have read every twin study I could find and they vindicate everything I'm saying. They're a major cornerstone of hereditarianism. "Go read things that prove right, then you'll know how wrong you are!" 

You are a joke.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I can: making clear what it is you are  debating!  What you are contesting at all!  That is really super-useful!   And I can do that!  AuH2O's original point:
> 
> *Culture matters.  No culture = no liberty.*


The OP is arguing that Europeans are genetically predisposed to have a culture uniquely amenable to liberty. 




> Does it bother anybody here that Stefan Molyneux, who used to be a hard  core anarcho-capitalist, is now essentially a nationalist?
> 
> After being convinced of the following precepts:
> -Crime is related to genetics
> -IQ is related to genetics
> -*Cultural compatibility is necessary for a free society, and also largely genetic*
> 
> He's basically totally flipped his mindset into supporting strong  borders, strong communities and cultural values, and even a strong  religion. He now regularly makes videos on the genetics of crime and the  heritability of intelligence, and virulently supports Donald Trump.
> 
> So did he just go insane? Or does he have a point?


It is that claim that I've been arguing against.

...which is why I wanted to know whether you agreed with that claim. 




> That's what I kind of guessed, and what you have now confirmed.  So great!  So, what's the debate again?


If you would state your position vis a vis the subject of the thread (white--> liberty), we could debate that. 




> Am I supposed to persuade you of the importance of culture?   How would I go about that?  What would a "debate" about the question  "does culture matter" look like?


It would begin with a response to my last post, in which I explained at some length why culture does not really matter. 




> I asked you several questions about your thoughts, opinions,  and inclinations regarding culture, questions of the type that _could_ be potentially fruitful and interesting.  You flippantly totally skipped and ignored these questions.


You asked me whether I thought culture mattered, I said no and explained why.

As  for my own cultural inclinations, I ignored it because it didn't seem  relevant, but okay; I don't care for asceticism, joie de vivre is much  better. I don't care for militant moralizers either, which leads me to  have the some disdain for both puritans and SJWs. I don't care for  leftist values vis a vis sexuality, family, etc, but I don't really care  what they do as long as they leave me alone.




> And yet  you're going to try to get all wound up and give me a hard time about  not answering your single yes-or-no trap "question"?


You either agree with the OP's thesis or you don't.

...not sure why you see that as a "trap" question. 

But fine, don't answer it, I won't mention it again. 




> You have no interest in culture.  In depravity vs. morality.  You  say "whatevs."  OK!  Got it!  I really do.  You are not a cultural  conservative.  You don't think civilization requires all that  "peripheral" rubbish at all.  So, thus, you are not going to have a  sincere, interesting debate about those topics


The interesting debate would be about whether those issues actually matter.

My opening statement is up there, waiting for you to rebut. 




> So.... why are you engaging me?


You engaged me. Our first interaction in this thread was post #66, where you quoted a comment I made to another user. 




> Who  knows, probably to smear or attack someone you don't like, like this  Molyneux fellow.  But I have given you lots of words, hundreds of words,  in a sincere, good-faith attempt to explain some of the basics of the  intellectual framework I am working on.


Yes, and I've made counterarguments, and asked further questions. That's how debates generally work. 

....really don't understand why you've got your panties in a bunch. 

Maybe it's all that fasting in your newfound ascetic lifestyle? 

Go skinny fellow and eat a steak and have a glass of burgundy.




> You  won't say one word about your own position and opinions about culture,  and you most certainly do not care one lick about mine.


Did you not read any of my posts? I made my position quite clear. 




> *You just want to change topics and make it about race and immigration.*


Actually, that's the topic of the thread, as evident in the OP which I quoted above.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Go look at the study of identical twins raised separately some time.


 Now I'm not getting into this, mind you, but actually there have many twin studies, and there have been some fascinatingly strange results, at least some of which would seem to support behavioral heritability.  Non-twin studies, too.  Weird stuff, like kids who, say, never met their dad at all, never were in the same room with him, but turn out to have many of the same very unique mannerisms or quirks.  Anyway, not attacking you or taking sides, you just made me remember these studies.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Look at the data. Whites tend to vote for who is perceived to be the smaller government candidate


Great, so a whiter country will mean a government which is perceived to be smaller, but actually isn't.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Actually, that's the topic of the thread, as evident in the OP which I quoted above.


Well I haven't said anything about the OP.  As is my wont.  I apologize that this may be a little confusing at times.  I just come in and have conversations I think will be interesting, whatever thread they may be in, whatever the thread may originally have been about, and often I do not even notice what the original topic was (or I forget).

As I say: regarding race and immigration, you and ROL have fun playing in that sandbox.

Maybe I'll come back and discuss more about culture when I have more time.  I do appreciate you said some things I didn't address.  But it's not really something one radically changes one's mind about due to an internet discussion, is it?  It's basically a religious thing, or at least it is that deeply engrained.  I am perfectly satisfied that it doesn't matter to you, and I am highly skeptical that I can change your mind and make you suddenly a big pro-family values guy if that wasn't how you were brought up.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Great, so a whiter country will mean a government which is perceived to be smaller, but actually isn't.


 Ha!  Credit where credit is due, that was a good line.   You made me laugh.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Great, so a whiter country will mean a government which is perceived to be smaller, but actually isn't.


I can't imagine you think that was actually an honest reply to what I said. I've provided empirical justification after empirical justification, and you're cutting out most of my post, using eyeroll smilies all the while not dealing with any of the data. You should be better than this.

----------


## TheCount

> LOL no one believes what you just said. There is not the same rate of black conservatives as white conservatives. Democrats race bait. All you did here is aid them by race a baiting trump 24/7.


If you don't think that conservatives race bait, you are either oblivious or can't smell your own $#@!.

----------


## acptulsa

> So you don't understand anything about the topic at hand,  don't know what "heritability" is and yet you stridently assert that I don't know what words mean and that I should read twin studies. The irony is that I have read every twin study I could find and they vindicate everything I'm saying. They're a major cornerstone of hereditarianism. "Go read things that prove right, then you'll know how wrong you are!" 
> 
> You are a joke.


I didn't say you didn't know what heritability means.  Not even once.




> I can't imagine you think that was actually an honest reply to what I said. I've provided empirical justification after empirical justification, and you're cutting out most of my post, using eyeroll smilies all the while not dealing with any of the data. You should be better than this.


He was making a joke because white paint makes rooms look smaller and black paint does the opposite.

I'm sorry you're humor-challenged.  Is there anything we can do to make this space safer for you, Snowflake?

----------


## FindLiberty

...thread title needs a sensitivity warning,

"May cause itching".

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> I didn't say you didn't know what heritability means.  Not even once.


Oh? What word were you referring to then?




> I don't think that word means what you think it means.









> He was making a joke because white paint makes rooms look smaller and black paint does the opposite.
> 
> I'm sorry you're humor-challenged.  Is there anything we can do to make this space safer for you, Snowflake?


I don't care about the joke, I care about cutting out everything but the least important fragment of the post and not dealing with the data. I like r3v. We agree on many important things, like monarchy, imperialism and the like. I usually like when I disagree with him because (unlike you) he makes good arguments and gets me thinking.

----------


## Son_of_Liberty90

> Now I'm not getting into this, mind you, but actually there have many twin studies, and there have been some fascinatingly strange results, at least some of which would seem to support behavioral heritability.  Non-twin studies, too.  *Weird stuff, like kids who, say, never met their dad at all, never were in the same room with him, but turn out to have many of the same very unique mannerisms or quirks.*  Anyway, not attacking you or taking sides, you just made me remember these studies.


Very interesting, do you have any references to studies like these?

----------


## silverhandorder

Stef is turning quite a bit on his focus. Fortunately for me this is where I was leaning too. Listening to his new video he is pretty explicit about this change.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I can't imagine you think that was actually an honest reply to what I said. I've provided empirical justification after empirical justification, and you're cutting out most of my post, using eyeroll smilies all the while not dealing with any of the data. You should be better than this.


You said, did you not, that whites vote for what they perceive to be small government candidates?

...as opposed to voting for candidates who actually are for smaller government?

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## Son_of_Liberty90

> Stef is turning quite a bit on his focus. Fortunately for me this is where I was leaning too. Listening to his new video he is pretty explicit about this change.


I agree, 




> *Gratitude to one's culture is perhaps more fitting than pride. * Or maybe a kind of pride on behalf of those who maintained it (since only after you are dead can you be said to not have corrupted it).﻿

----------


## undergroundrr

Here's where I'm putting my money -

----------


## TheCount

> Here's where I'm putting my money -
> 
> **picture snipped for size sake**


I'm... not sure I buy that.  I would say that the majority of my friends have been INTP or INTJ, and some of them have been supporters of various levels of central planning.  I think it came from the POV of "I'm smart and people are dumb and I can make better decisions for them than they can make for themselves."

All just anecdotal and my opinion of course.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I'm... not sure I buy that.  I would say that the majority of my friends have been INTP or INTJ, and some of them have been supporters of various levels of central planning.  I think it came from the POV of "I'm smart and people are dumb and I can make better decisions for them than they can make for themselves."
> 
> All just anecdotal and my opinion of course.


I don't know what either of those things are..

EDIT: 

Nevermind, I got it now.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## undergroundrr

Now, correlating MBTI to race would be interesting.  FWIW, Jung concluded in his travels that personality archetypes are universal across cultures.  Of course, certain cultures and their more vocal spokesmen aren't immune from making claims about a collective personality of their culture, race, faith (or lack of), etc.

One fellow named J. Philippe Rushton tried to find correlations between race and MBTI.  He claimed that there are more introverted Asians and more extroverted blacks, with whites somewhere in the middle.

Also the company CPP claims there are more ESxP blacks than the average of society.

I've seen one claim that ISTJ is more prevalent among African Americans. http://www.discoveryourpersonality.com/istj.html, which throws a minor wrench into the previous two claims.

When discussing DNA differences, it might be useful to note that according to geneticists, Europeans and Asians have 1-4 percent Neanderthal DNA, which Africans tend to lack. But anybody who has actually been around different cultures knows that it's ridiculous to describe blacks monolithically.  Are they Nigerian-descended, Sudanese, Kenyan? All completely different from one another. Hispanic cultures are similarly diverse.

And of course, the Ashkenazim have the highest IQ's. Some claim the collective IQ of the Ashkenazim might have risen 15 points in the last 500 years. But that opens another can of worms.

Oh yeah, and gay people are smarter than straight. http://link.springer.com/article/10....A1024551704723

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Of course whites vote conservative more often, whites on average have more money.

----------


## FunkBuddha

I may be mistaken, but White and Asian Nationalists probably committed more murders in the 20th century than black folks and Hispanics. I don't see where he factored that into his statistics. Maybe I wasn't paying attention. Anyhow, I'm with the Nationalist attitude to some degree until they get into the whole ranking of people by skin color/IQ thing straightened out. 

Psychopathy is present in all races and at all IQ levels. Weeding them out of positions of political power seems more logical.

----------


## undergroundrr

I can't get into nationalism.  There isn't a nation on Earth that shouldn't be split into two or more parts.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Good to know.


I do.  I hate globalists and useful idiots for them.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## staerker

> You said, did you not, that whites vote for what they perceive to be small government candidates?
> 
> ...as opposed to voting for candidates who actually are for smaller government?


At what average IQ can one avoid misidentifying such a simple thing?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Of course whites vote conservative more often, whites on average have more money.


That has $#@! all to do with anything. If you can not get off your ass, drive to the DMV, register on your own with out asking to be, then drive to the polling place you are most likely to lazy to learn the issues and most likely should not vote.




> I do.  I hate globalists and useful idiots for them.


Its fun to hate them, I mean no matter what I see about them or happens to them I never really feel bad about them. Its a good feeling you know?




> At what average IQ can one avoid misidentifying such a simple thing?


I would say sub 90.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You've made it quite clear that Whiteness is very important to you in other posts. Don't bother putting lipstick on that pig now.


You appear to hate white people, Cajun.  Why is that exactly?  And don't tell me that you don't.  Anytime someone mentions the word, you go ape$#@! and start calling them names.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## silverhandorder

Nationalism is bad but better than globalism and communism (democrats).

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yeah, I AM going to tell you that I don't hate white people. Why would you think I do? Just because I don't want to banish everyone from this country who isn't white? White nationalism is what I hate; not white people.


I called you out on it, due to the large number of times you have run around here squealing when anyone does not hate white people.  I understand you have been told over and over that this is the politically-correct position to take, but you need to wake the hell up. 




> I answer every question you ask me, but you haven't answered my question from post #170. Why is that? Do you hate non-white people and want to drive them out of America? Many here that *you* align yourself with do.


This country was largely founded by white European Christians so that they could practice the flavor of Christianity that they so chose; rather than live under the Church of England.  These white people had the guts to build the country, declare independence, frame the principles upon which our country is founded, invent all kinds of wondrous things and work their asses off to build a country for people who wanted to live under certain principles.   So, why in hell would I hate white people?

As to your question... do I hate non-white people?  No.  Although, I do believe that the people allowed to immigrate here should be people who want to live under the principles we were founded upon, in addition to assimilating into our culture.  Our immigration policies pre-1964 were written to do just that.   If someone does not fit that description, nor offer something that we need, they should not be allowed to immigrate here.  It's really quite simple.  No one is hating them; they just do not belong here if they will not add something.  In other words, unless the goal is to become a 3rd world country, we should not be importing people with IQs approaching mental retardation, will be going on the dole the moment they arrive, have no interest in assimilating/becoming Americans and whose beliefs are in direct contradiction of the principles our country was founded upon.   I do not hate these people; they just do not belong in the United States.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## LibertyEagle

^^

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I called you out on it, due to the large number of times you have run around here squealing when anyone does not hate white people.  I understand you have been told over and over that this is the politically-correct position to take, but you need to wake the hell up. 
> 
> 
> This country was largely founded by white European Christians so that they could practice the flavor of Christianity that they so chose; rather than live under the Church of England.  These white people had the guts to build the country, declare independence, frame the principles upon which our country is founded, invent all kinds of wondrous things and work their asses off to build a country for people who wanted to live under certain principles.   So, why in hell would I hate white people?
> 
> As to your question... do I hate non-white people?  No.  Although, I do believe that the people allowed to immigrate here should be people who want to live under the principles we were founded upon, in addition to assimilating into our culture.  Our immigration policies pre-1964 were written to do just that.   If someone does not fit that description, nor offer something that we need, they should not be allowed to immigrate here.  It's really quite simple.  No one is hating them; they just do not belong here if they will not add something.  In other words, unless the goal is to become a 3rd world country, we should not be importing people with IQs approaching mental retardation, will be going on the dole the moment they arrive, have no interest in assimilating/becoming Americans and whose beliefs are in direct contradiction of the principles our country was founded upon.  * I do not hate these people; they just do not belong in the United States*.


You love them but don't want to be anywhere near them.  Got it. 

Yes, the founders wanted to be free to practice their own religions and traditions.  But they also recognized that others should be free to practice their own religions and traditions as well.  Freedom of Religion was one of their big points. They put it up front- #1 in the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Unless everybody is free, nobody is free.




> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances*.

----------


## dannno

> By the way, there were people  here (who weren't white) before the white European Christians got here.  Study your history. 
> 
> See?  Two can play that game.


Wasn't there a thread recently where somebody outted LE as all or part Native American? I could be wrong.

either way,

----------


## dannno

> You love them but don't want to be anywhere near them.  Got it.


I think she just doesn't want to pay for them. 

When LE was talking about how back in the day immigrants needed to add value in order to immigrate here, essentially she was saying that they needed to be able to support themselves, or they would go back to their native country. Now they have welfare, so they don't need to add value to society to remain here.

----------


## silverhandorder

> I have called you out on your white nationalism too, due to the large number of times you have run around here squealing about the number of brown people crossing the border.  You have been told over and over that it is a racist, anti-liberty position that you take, and you need to wake the hell up. 
> 
> By the way, there were people  here (who weren't white) before the white European Christians got here.  Study your history. 
> 
> See?  Two can play that game.


It is not inherently racist to be against immigration. See there you $#@!ed up and overplayed your hand. It is obvious what triggers you and makes you think we are racist. 





> ^^
> 
> "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain


FTW

edit:



> You love them but don't want to be anywhere near them.  Got it. 
> 
> Yes, the founders wanted to be free to practice their own religions and traditions.  But they also recognized that others should be free to practice their own religions and traditions as well.  Freedom of Religion was one of their big points. They put it up front- #1 in the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Unless everybody is free, nobody is free.


I love all people. Has nothing to do with wanting the best here.

My immigration policy would be if I believed in controlling people.

1. High IQ only. (115+)
2. Zero benefits.
3. Buy in probably.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Yeah, I AM going to tell you that I don't hate white people. Why would you think I do? Just because I don't want to banish everyone from this country who isn't white? White nationalism is what I hate; not white people. 
> 
> I answer every question you ask me, but you haven't answered my question from post #170. Why is that? Do you hate non-white people and want to drive them out of America? Many here that *you* align yourself with do.


We do not want to banish them, we just do not want them to become the majority as that will mean our rights, wealth, and future will be voted away as that will happen as it has in South Africa and every non white city/state in America.

So how about we work together to avoid such a fate?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I called you out on it, due to the large number of times you have run around here squealing when anyone does not hate white people.  I understand you have been told over and over that this is the politically-correct position to take, but you need to wake the hell up. 
> 
> 
> This country was largely founded by white European Christians so that they could practice the flavor of Christianity that they so chose; rather than live under the Church of England.  These white people had the guts to build the country, declare independence, frame the principles upon which our country is founded, invent all kinds of wondrous things and work their asses off to build a country for people who wanted to live under certain principles.   So, why in hell would I hate white people?
> 
> As to your question... do I hate non-white people?  No.  Although, I do believe that the people allowed to immigrate here should be people who want to live under the principles we were founded upon, in addition to assimilating into our culture.  Our immigration policies pre-1964 were written to do just that.   If someone does not fit that description, nor offer something that we need, they should not be allowed to immigrate here.  It's really quite simple.  No one is hating them; they just do not belong here if they will not add something.  In other words, unless the goal is to become a 3rd world country, we should not be importing people with IQs approaching mental retardation, will be going on the dole the moment they arrive, have no interest in assimilating/becoming Americans and whose beliefs are in direct contradiction of the principles our country was founded upon.   I do not hate these people; they just do not belong in the United States.



Aman!

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I have called you out on your white nationalism too, due to the large number of times you have run around here squealing about the number of brown people crossing the border.  You have been told over and over that it is a racist, anti-liberty position that you take, and you need to wake the hell up. 
> 
> By the way, there were people  here (who weren't white) before the white European Christians got here.  Study your history. 
> 
> See?  Two can play that game.


We would be saying the same thing if it was a bunch of whites doing the same thing, but that is not the case.

So wanting to keep out people who will vote away your rights, wealth, and future is anti Liberty but attacking people who want to prevent themselves from being replaced and out voted by low IQed supports of marxism is?

If that is the cause it shows 2 things. 1st the open border LIB faction is going to hell faster and faster and 2 The Alt Right Rises faster and faster.

Ice Age Columbus proves you wrong

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Wasn't there a thread recently where somebody outted LE as all or part Native American? I could be wrong.


Not exactly outed, Danno.  I have said all along that I have some native American blood in me, along with a whole lot of others.  I do not identify as Indian though; American is just fine with me.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Are we giving people an IQ test when they cross the border now?  If not, how do you assume to know what their IQ is?  Are you suggesting that people from 3rd world countries possess only low IQ levels? Do you realize that IQ has nothing to do with someone's eduction level?


I can't see how IQ would not help with educational attainment.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## dannno

> Wasn't me.  I have no idea what LE's heritage is.  
> 
> Please stop spamming me with Stefan Molyneux videos.  I don't consider him an expert on anything.


I don't care if you don't consider him an expert on anything, because his shows are the most well researched shows that I have seen anywhere on the internet or any medium and he interviews and consults with some of the best experts on a wide range of topics. This is a forum that a lot of people read, not just you, so I'm going to provide the best information available to help prove my case. If you are going to talk about people that were here before us trying to make some point that doesn't make any sense in light of new evidence, then I'm going to point that evidence out. If you don't want to look at the evidence, then you can go forward in life continuing to make factual errors and other people who are interested in learning the truth will eventually leave you behind because your points will come across as totally invalid to those willing to continue their education.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I don't think so.  If non-whites become the majority, so be it.  I'll still be me, I'll still be doing what I do, and I doubt I'll be affected much because I'm an individual.  I don't count myself as part of a collective.


That's what you think, but it is beyond naive.  Do you comprehend what is going on with the EU right now?  They have flat out stated their goal to get rid of all national borders, national armies, etc. and have one big glut.  That is exactly what the globalists are working to do with North America.  So, you can sit on the sidelines, twiddle your thumbs and watch it happen or get up off your ass and do something besides pontificate idiocy.

----------


## dannno

> Please tell me where we're giving these people IQ tests, and how are you privy to the results?  (Or are you making assumptions? Uh-huh.)
> 
> Speaking of which, I wonder what your IQ is, since you can't seem to put together a grammatically correct sentence.


Molyneux has been consulting with many experts in the field of IQ and race for over a year now. All you have to do is go to youtube and type in Molynuex Race IQ and you will get several videos that you can watch and educate yourself on the topic and decide for yourself. 

Or you can sit around and keep asking where we are giving these people IQ tests.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Fine, just don't put his videos in posts where you quote me please.  Make a separate post because I won't be watching SM.


You really should.  You might learn something.  That's what happened to him you know.  He got additional information that caused him to change some of his positions.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Are we giving people an IQ test when they cross the border now?  If not, how do you assume to know what their IQ is?  Are you suggesting that people from 3rd world countries possess only low IQ levels? Do you realize that IQ has *nothing to do* with someone's eduction level?





> That's not what I said.  Hmmm...wonder what YOUR IQ is.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## dannno

> Fine, just don't put his videos in posts where you quote me please.  Make a separate post because I won't be watching SM.


Again, it makes little difference to me whether you watch them or not, if you keep making posts that can easily be refuted using facts, reason and evidence that are contained in Molyneux videos then I will continue to reply to your quotes with them to benefit others who are reading the forum. 

If you had a more open mind and were actually willing to learn from Molyneux, not that you have to agree with him on everything (I certainly don't), but at least you would be less inclined to make posts with egregious errors that are easily refuted with a Moynuex video. And at that point, if you disagreed, you could at least attempt at putting forward a valid argument.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> You love them but don't want to be anywhere near them.  Got it. 
> 
> Yes, the founders wanted to be free to practice their own religions and traditions.  But they also recognized that others should be free to practice their own religions and traditions as well.  Freedom of Religion was one of their big points. They put it up front- #1 in the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Unless everybody is free, nobody is free.


Who cares if he does not want to be near them or loves them to begin with?

Everyone has the right to not be around others, and when those groups have non compatible values, cultures views it is best that groups exist apart as to preserve themselves and to avoid conflict.

No, people can be free while other people vote themselves in bondage. What they are not allow to do is place others in bondage in the name of cultural marxism or other such nonsense.

More over the Founders understood the value in immigration restriction and that all cultures do not value Liberty.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I think she just doesn't want to pay for them. 
> 
> When LE was talking about how back in the day immigrants needed to add value in order to immigrate here, essentially she was saying that they needed to be able to support themselves, or they would go back to their native country. Now they have welfare, so they don't need to add value to society to remain here.


So not wanting to pay for others or suffer their burden makes us bad people in the eyes of people like zip? The horror.

----------


## dannno

> @LibertyEagle @dannno 
> 
> The day I convert over to the alt-right will be the day hell freezes over. That is what SM has done.  It is not for me.


I don't know if I really consider myself alt-right. There are a lot of issues I agree with people on who are considered alt-right, but the problem is it is a very broad term that I don't think has a specific enough definition. I think there are quite a few issues I disagree with many who are considered alt-right, although again I don't know if alt-right has a very defined system of beliefs.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Who cares if he does not want to be near them or loves them to begin with?
> 
> Everyone has the right to not be around others, and when those groups have non compatible values, cultures views it is best that groups exist apart as to preserve themselves and to avoid conflict.
> 
> No, people can be free while other people vote themselves in bondage. What they are not allow to do is place others in bondage in the name of cultural marxism or other such nonsense.
> 
> More over the Founders understood the value in immigration restriction and that all cultures do not value Liberty.


Would give you +rep if I could.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Wasn't me.  I have no idea what LE's heritage is.  
> 
> Please stop spamming me with Stefan Molyneux videos.  I don't consider him an expert on anything.


You hate him because he destroys your argument.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Great reply....thanks for showing you can't understand the difference.


What does nothing to do mean to you?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Are we giving people an IQ test when they cross the border now?  If not, how do you assume to know what their IQ is?  Are you suggesting that people from 3rd world countries possess only low IQ levels? Do you realize that IQ has nothing to do with someone's eduction level?


Yes 3rd world nations have a low IQ, clearly you do not understand the value of IQ and its relation to the success or failure of a nation.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I don't think so.  If non-whites become the majority, so be it.  I'll still be me, I'll still be doing what I do, and I doubt I'll be affected much because I'm an individual.  I don't count myself as part of a collective.


And when your rights are voted away and your live in a crime ridden slum?

You are so detached from reality its almost funny.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Please tell me where we're giving these people IQ tests, and how are you privy to the results?  (Or are you making assumptions? Uh-huh.)
> 
> Speaking of which, I wonder what your IQ is, since you can't seem to put together a grammatically correct sentence.


http://delong.typepad.com/pdf-1.pdf

135-140. Only fools think grammar counts.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> That's what you think, but it is beyond naive.  Do you comprehend what is going on with the EU right now?  They have flat out stated their goal to get rid of all national borders, national armies, etc. and have one big glut.  That is exactly what the globalists are working to do with North America.  So, you can sit on the sidelines, twiddle your thumbs and watch it happen or get up off your ass and do something besides pontificate idiocy.


Why is it that its never people like him that suffer the nightmares of their own naivety?

I wonder if he can see that South Africa is the future if the borders not secure, the hordes deported, and legal immigration halted and reduced.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> I don't care if you don't consider him an expert on anything, because his shows are the most well researched shows that I have seen anywhere on the internet or any medium and he interviews and consults with some of the best experts on a wide range of topics. This is a forum that a lot of people read, not just you, so I'm going to provide the best information available to help prove my case. If you are going to talk about people that were here before us trying to make some point that doesn't make any sense in light of new evidence, then I'm going to point that evidence out. If you don't want to look at the evidence, then you can go forward in life continuing to make factual errors and other people who are interested in learning the truth will eventually leave you behind because your points will come across as totally invalid to those willing to continue their education.


I don't think 'continuing education' is the right phrase.  It appears to me to be a quest to find what principles an individual is willing to sacrifice in order to make living in America 'tolerable' for them.  If you accept these as 'truths' instead of subjective answers to the questions we face today, it is you who will be lost, even if you have an echo chamber of reassurance.

:insert anti-war 1960s hippy now pro-war obama lover meme here:

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> @LibertyEagle @dannno 
> 
> The day I convert over to the alt-right will be the day hell freezes over. That is what SM has done.  It is not for me.


The Alt Right is just fine without you and is rising more and more every day.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Would give you +rep if I could.


Love your work as well. The immigration zealots are losing as their ideals are based on the lie of egalitarianism. Soon we will have immigration laws in place that make the 1924 act look like the 1965 act.

----------


## silverhandorder

I don't even know if alt right is anything other than "$#@! those guys over there" type of movement. It is just conservatives that got tired of listening to whiny BS from liberals. And it is conservatives that got tired of watching "high class" conservatives basically fold any time someone called them racist.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I don't even know if alt right is anything other than "$#@! those guys over there" type of movement. It is just conservatives that got tired of listening to whiny BS from liberals. And it is conservatives that got tired of watching "high class" conservatives basically fold any time someone called them racist.


More or less its palos/Closed border LIBs that have stopped believing in the blank slate view of humanity, accept race realism (that race exists) genetics and IQ and reject cultural Marxism and its lies.

With the Internet and the death of the cuck king Buckly we are making massive gains is a short volume of time with a shoe string budget,

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> The Alt Right is just fine without you and is rising more and more every day.


Soon they'll be 1% of the population!

(I think I'm being a little too generous).

----------


## BV2

I used to watch Stefan, I'm surprised to hear that he's become a nationalist.  Well, is he just a nationalist-or the Statist version?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Soon they'll be 1% of the population!
> 
> (I think I'm being a little too generous).


We got Cantor, We removed Boner, we going to get McCain and oh yeah we are burning down the Neo Con Faction all the while taking the White House.

Funny how many LIB candidates do you have in office again?

----------


## silverhandorder

> I used to watch Stefan, I'm surprised to hear that he's become a nationalist.  Well, is he just a nationalist-or the Statist version?


He is pretty much what he was before. He just commenting more on politics. 

He changed his mind on immigration, atheists, IQ (work in progress) and Christians.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I used to watch Stefan, I'm surprised to hear that he's become a nationalist.  Well, is he just a nationalist-or the Statist version?


Liberty based nationalist. In short he kepts out burdens, threats, and enemy voters.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> We got Cantor, We removed Boner, we going to get McCain and oh yeah we are burning down the Neo Con Faction all the while taking the White House.


The Tea Party took down Cantor and Boehner.




> Funny how many LIB candidates do you have in office again?


Paul, Massie, Amash, were elected because of the liberty movement.  Not to mention representatives who have come around (Jones) and local level politicians.

----------


## staerker

> Liberty based nationalist. In short he kepts out burdens, threats, and enemy voters.


No.




> I used to watch Stefan, I'm surprised to hear that he's become a nationalist.  Well, is he just a nationalist-or the Statist version?


In the "current society" Stefan is a Statist.

@1:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-lwKOOYgFo

He may not be one in a hypothetical scenario, but "currently" he is.

----------


## BV2

> No.
> 
> 
> 
> In the "current society" Stefan is a Statist.
> 
> @1:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-lwKOOYgFo
> 
> He may not be one in a hypothetical scenario, but "currently" he is.


How you gonna give me a 90 minute video.  He dropped the NAP?  Then pscho or statist.

----------


## staerker

> How you gonna give me a 90 minute video.  He dropped the NAP?  Then pscho or statist.


All you have to do is watch the first 3 mins.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Who cares if he does not want to be near them or loves them to begin with?
> 
> Everyone has the right to not be around others, and when those groups have non compatible values, cultures views it is best that groups exist apart as to preserve themselves and to avoid conflict.
> 
> No, people can be free while other people vote themselves in bondage. What they are not allow to do is place others in bondage in the name of cultural marxism or other such nonsense.
> 
> More over the Founders understood the value in immigration restriction and that all cultures do not value Liberty.


Many of the founders and people around them were immigrants.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I think she just doesn't want to pay for them. 
> 
> When LE was talking about how back in the day immigrants needed to add value in order to immigrate here, essentially she was saying that they needed to be able to support themselves, or they would go back to their native country. Now they have welfare, so they don't need to add value to society to remain here.


91% of male illegal immigrants are in the labor force- ie working. Illegals are not eligible for Federal welfare programs as has been shown many times.

----------


## dannno

> 91% of male illegal immigrants are in the labor force- ie working. Illegals are not eligible for Federal welfare programs as has been shown many times.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Note that your charts show LEGAL immigrants. Not illegals. Legal immigrants are eligible after they have been in the country for five years.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Note that your charts show LEGAL immigrants. Not illegals. Legal immigrants are eligible after they have been in the country for five years.


So basically we don't need immigrants.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> The Tea Party took down Cantor and Boehner.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul, Massie, Amash, were elected because of the liberty movement.  Not to mention representatives who have come around (Jones) and local level politicians.


What do you think the tea party/Liberty movement is/supported by?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> 


Some people will still not believe or find a way to split hairs. To some like "Juan" he would rather be equal in chains then have a nation that is free if it meant keep out subversives. 

He is like a person who would rather have the lifeboat he is one sink and everyone drown then some getting to life.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Note that your charts show LEGAL immigrants. Not illegals. Legal immigrants are eligible after they have been in the country for five years.


http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Ill...ant-Households

Saying the same lies over and over again does not make the lies true.

Never mind the fact they vote 8-2 for leftists right?

http://cis.org/immigration-impacts-o...ects-1980-2012

So I guess you support statism after all since you are ok with allowing in hordes of leftist voters. If you want to be out voted, move South of the border but do not bring them here.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> 91% of male illegal immigrants are in the labor force- ie working. Illegals are not eligible for Federal welfare programs as has been shown many times.


And your point? Just because they work does not mean they pay in at all let alone pay more then they put in, never mind wage suppression, increasing the cost of living, crimes committed, and elections skewed.

And they are being approved as shown. 

We get it, you can not accept reality which is a per requisite for Liberty.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Many of the founders and people around them were immigrants.



Liar, all but 5 of the Founders were born int 13 Colonies and the 5 that were not were English men who moved to the Colonies, which would be the same as a man moving from Montana to Texas so more or less they moved within the same national state.

If a man moves from Montana to Texas he is not an immigrant he is a man who is traveling within his nation.

Your lies are failing you more and more. THANK GOD FOR THE INTERNET!.

----------


## dannno

> Note that your charts show LEGAL immigrants. Not illegals. Legal immigrants are eligible after they have been in the country for five years.


There were some stats on illegal immigrants, but  what are the kids of illegal immigrants? Where do they show up in the charts?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> There were some stats on illegal immigrants, but  what are the kids of illegal immigrants? Where do they show up in the charts?



Wait for the mental gymnastics.

Ever wish people that support mass immigration were the only ones that had to suffer the burdens it causes?

----------


## undergroundrr

> There were some stats on illegal immigrants, but  what are the kids of illegal immigrants? Where do they show up in the charts?


And once again your answer is to ban brown people while the welfare state grows unabated. It reads as "more welfare for whites please." The charts are good, but they may have made the opposite point you intended.

re: Molyneux. Appeal to authority will get no one anywhere. Molyneux has on occasion after occasion ceded reason to confirmation bias and doesn't seem to see the difference anymore.

----------


## dannno

> And once again your answer is to ban brown people while the welfare state grows unabated.


lol... that is not MY answer.. I'm not even voting for Trump. I'm just presenting the argument that if we treat illegal immigrants like prostitutes and pay them to come here, the data seems to show that it will be impossible to ever have small government because the immigrants vote for bigger government and more welfare, while using more welfare than the your average citizen. More force will be used against white people and native borns to take their money over the long haul than would be used to control the border.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And once again your answer is to ban brown people


If the "brown people" entered the country illegally, you betcha.  




> while the welfare state grows unabated. It reads as "more welfare for whites please."


Do you hate white people?  If so, why?    Is it code for American citizens and the forebears who founded, fought for, settled, made all kinds of inventions and built the country?   If so, why the hatred?  Please explain.

You do get that there is a differentiation between American citizens and the rest of the world, right?  Do you really believe that American citizens can afford the welfare system that our government has already put in place for our own citizens, much less everyone else you seem to want to include.  




> The charts are good, but they may have made the opposite point you intended.


So, your argument seems to be that the solution is to provide welfare to the entire world.




> re: Molyneux. Appeal to authority will get no one anywhere. Molyneux has on occasion after occasion ceded reason to confirmation bias and doesn't seem to see the difference anymore.


No appeal to authority.  Rather, it is an appeal to facts.  Molyneux backs up everything he says.  It was these facts that caused him to change his viewpoint.  Or do facts not matter to you?

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## silverhandorder

> Conservatives could have had anything they wanted between 2001-2006, the years the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.  They could have ended abortion, they could have closed any border they wanted, they could have had ANYTHING (including all the wars any neocon could hope for.)  So don't tell me small government is impossible...they just didn't want it as much as they wanted to talk about it.
> 
> As far as the state welfare programs, there's a simple solution:  move to a red state where there are mostly white people (states like that DO exist.)   Your problem will be solved.


OR vote for Trump that also works. Much better I would say.

As far as 2001-2006 people back then were not waking up to this. For all we know we don't have the numbers now either. But I would not count all the conservatives as pro liberty.

edit: Some like Bushes are very anti liberty.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> What do you think the tea party/Liberty movement is/supported by?


Not the alt-right.  Most of the alt-right people I come across think that having principles is for "cucks."

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## Smitty

Nationalism seems to be the Zeitgeist of the new millennia. 

Does anyone here have a problem with "America first"?

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## Smitty

Identity politics have been around for quite a while,....NAACP, La Raza, ADL,...

It's only natural for individual groups to push for their own representation.

----------


## tod evans

> No.  The problem is *WHITE* Nationalism.  
> 
> (And before you ask, I don't hate white people.  I just don't hate people who *aren't* white, like white nationalists do.)


I hate everybody........

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## Smitty

Does anyone see any problem with identity politics such as expressed by the NAACP, La Raza, ADL, or Black Lives Matter?

----------


## Smitty

,..or AIPAC? Let's not forget AIPAC,...the king of *all* identity political organizations.

----------


## Smitty

Things got quiet all of a sudden.

----------


## tod evans

>

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## undergroundrr

> lol... that is not MY answer.. I'm not even voting for Trump.


Apologies, endorsement of Molyneux's endorsement of trump is difficult to distinguish from direct endorsement of trump.  I'll try to split that hair more precisely from here on out.

----------


## Smitty

> Let's review:  White nationalism believes in white supremacy .


Who says?,...I mean, besides the Southern Poverty Law Center, of course.

----------


## Smitty

Pat Buchanan makes some interesting points here:

http://buchanan.org/blog/great-white-hope-125286

excerpt:

_Since affirmative action for black Americans began in the 1960s, it has been broadened to encompass women, Hispanics, Native Americans the handicapped, indeed, almost 70 percent of the nation.

White males, now down to 31 percent of the population, have become the only Americans against whom it is not only permissible, but commendable, to discriminate._

So,..70% of Americans now qualify for some type of Affirmative Action. and by coincidence!, 31% of America now consists of white males.

Seems to me that if you're a member of the 31% that's getting no government representation, you damn well better put together an advocacy group or you're going to get handed the short end of the stick until you do.

----------


## Smitty

And,..in the case of the white male in America,...not only are you going to get no governmental representation, you're going to get stuck with the bill for those who do!

So,..as a white male, I'd have to be a dumbazz for *sure* to condemn any group who takes it upon themselves to look out for my interests. Especially when they have to deal with being physically attacked by Communists for doing so,...such as happened in Sacramento a couple of days ago.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Not the alt-right.  Most of the alt-right people I come across think that having principles is for "cucks."


Many of our tea party friends have over lapping goals/views.

No, having principles that prevent you from winning, maintain victory or power. or otherwise playing by the rules set by the enemies is cuckoldry. When you look at the term and the action the bird uses it really is a fine usage of the word.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Nationalism seems to be the Zeitgeist of the new millennia. 
> 
> Does anyone here have a problem with "America first"?





> No.  The problem is *WHITE* Nationalism.  
> 
> (And before you ask, I don't hate white people.  I just don't hate people who *aren't* white, like white nationalists do.)


You think whites just being a majority is "White nationalism". Guess what?! We do not care about protecting our interests.




> Identity politics have been around for quite a while,....NAACP, La Raza, ADL,...
> 
> It's only natural for individual groups to push for their own representation.


"BUT WHITES ARE EVIL, RACIST, NAZIS, VAMPIRES IF THEY DO THAT, BECAUSE MUH HOLOCAUST AND SLAVERY! MUH FEELS!"




> Let's review:  White nationalism believes in white supremacy and seeks a white state.  The idea is to turn this country into a white nation.
> 
> The stated purpose of all of the groups you mention is to advance *causes* of certain groups (African-Americans, Jewish people, Latinos)....but if the agenda of any of these groups is to rid the nation of another race or nationality, then yes.  Of course.


And their causes have resulted in the loss of basic freedoms this nation was founded on out of entho resentment.

That is the sole agenda of La Raza, the founded supported and the many of its members support open genocide.

All we want is keep America with a White Majority by ending mass non white immigration (well for many reasons to limit immigration). How is any of that a bad thing?




> Apologies, endorsement of Molyneux's endorsement of trump is difficult to distinguish from direct endorsement of trump.  I'll try to split that hair more precisely from here on out.


He sees Trump as a means to an end and understands the threat the left is with an open border of blind voters.




> Who says?,...I mean, besides the Southern Poverty Law Center, of course.


The same people who called Ron Paul a White Supremacist,  and claimed Rand hated jews, the same people who attack the 2nd Amendment, its supports and that that support limited government?

Why would any Liberty minded person believe anything they say and support them being shut down?




> Pat Buchanan makes some interesting points here:
> 
> http://buchanan.org/blog/great-white-hope-125286
> 
> excerpt:
> 
> _Since affirmative action for black Americans began in the 1960s, it has been broadened to encompass women, Hispanics, Native Americans the handicapped, indeed, almost 70 percent of the nation.
> 
> White males, now down to 31 percent of the population, have become the only Americans against whom it is not only permissible, but commendable, to discriminate._
> ...


But "muh racism"!




> And,..in the case of the white male in America,...not only are you going to get no governmental representation, you're going to get stuck with the bill for those who do!
> 
> So,..as a white male, I'd have to be a dumbazz for *sure* to condemn any group who takes it upon themselves to look out for my interests. Especially when they have to deal with being physically attacked by Communists for doing so,...such as happened in Sacramento a couple of days ago.


Not only do we have to pay the bills for those who do, we get stripped of our rights when those people vote. Freedom to Associate, KABAs/self defense, privacy, ect.

Whites are no longer caring about been seen as "racist" as the cost of trying to get along is too high and more and more people are just saying the opposition will never be satisfied.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Denial isn't just a river in Egypt apparently.


So you believe the same people who called Ron Paul a White Supremacist?

So if you do, why are on a forum named after a White Supremacists?

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Apparently decency is for "cucks" too (This discussion is about the comment Bobby Knight made with regard to rape -- "relax and enjoy it" -- back in 1988.)
> 
> I hate the word "cucks" too.  It's like being back in 7th grade.


The fascination is just like a kid who learns a naughty word and tells all his friends about it.  It really shows the immaturity of the alt-right.




> Many of our tea party friends have over lapping goals/views.
> 
> No, having principles that prevent you from winning, maintain victory or power. or otherwise playing by the rules set by the enemies is cuckoldry. When you look at the term and the action the bird uses it really is a fine usage of the word.


What is winning to you?  To me, winning is limiting government, abolishing the Federal Reserve, and ending the interventionist foreign policy we've been pursuing for the last few decades.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> The fascination is just like a kid who learns a naughty word and tells all his friends about it.  It really shows the immaturity of the alt-right.
> 
> 
> 
> What is winning to you?  To me, winning is limiting government, abolishing the Federal Reserve, and ending the interventionist foreign policy we've been pursuing for the last few decades.


Halting and reversing the damage the leftists and Neo Cons have done, yes shrinking and limiting the government, arresting and hanging the board of the fed and stop being world police are our end goals but we can not achieve that if we do not win elections, and if current treads continue you the left will have stacked the deck via immigration as to ensure we can not win any Federal elections.

The current right (Neo Cons, Conservatism INC, etc) are at best shills doing this to make money or controlled opposition (for the left, or "Foreign interests") so more or less we are dumping them and replacing them with Palos, Right leaning LIBs, etc. This is largely to the last 50 years of failure and surrender. Even when they had the Congress and White House they still choked as they would rather be in office rather then wield power. 

This is in stark contrast to the left which when they take power they put the foot to the floor and achieve what they want (no matter how awful or the public outrage against it). So more or less we dumping the morons that refuse to do what we want, or sell out to the enemy or who fear being called names by fools, liars, tyrants, and traitors rather then the destruction of the nation, culture, and Liberty our forefathers fought so hard to secure and protect.

They have proved to either be incapable or unwilling to advance our goals, protect our rights, and or stop the enemy and because of this they must be replaced.

To me winning is the following.

Restoring Immigration Sanity/border control
Killing Political correctness/Cultural Marxism
Restoring the 10th Amendment
Restoring privacy rights
Restoring the 2nd Amendment to its full glory (Wanting to buy a 155mm howitzer  over the net, to our door, no paper work? GREAT!)
Restoring education to the states and locality
Abolishing the 16th, 17th Amendments
Hanging the Board of the Federal Reserve
Ejecting the UN from U.S
Restoring Sound Money
Putting in guards against the 100 years of government growth from happening again
Having a Space Program that is worth a damn ( I mean colonizes on the Moon and TerraForming Mars which would be a better investment instead of wasting money on feeding the 3rd world)

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> At what average IQ can one avoid misidentifying such a simple thing?


...one well above that of Europeans, evidently.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> OR vote for Trump that also works. Much better I would say.
> 
> As far as 2001-2006 people back then were not waking up to this. For all we know we don't have the numbers now either. But I would not count all the conservatives as pro liberty.
> 
> edit: Some like Bushes are very anti liberty.


Those of us n the Sun Belt have been awake to this for decades, literally.

----------


## AuH20

> Yes 3rd world nations have a low IQ, clearly you do not understand the value of IQ and its relation to the success or failure of a nation.


But I have loyalty prioritized over intelligence. Loyalty is a rare, invaluable trait. But as we've seen, many of these new immigrants don't even fulfill that critical criteria. They want to enjoy the material benefits of the U.S. while aiming to transform the country into a facsimile of their ultra socialistic homelands.

----------


## AuH20

> Apparently decency is for "cucks" too (This discussion is about the comment Bobby Knight made with regard to rape -- "relax and enjoy it" -- back in 1988.)
> 
> I hate the word "cucks" too.  It's like being back in 7th grade.


Cuckold is actually the ideal term for many of these knowingly blind dopes. Multinational corporations feed us this lie of unfettered immigration through clever egalitarian language and some people just swallow every drop of deceit. The ruse is that YOU ARE BEING SYSTEMATICALLY REPLACED BECAUSE YOU AREN'T MALLEABLE ENOUGH FOR THEIR AGENDA. Corporate America wants mindless proles that will roll over and play dead upon receiving a tasty treat.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> And,..in the case of the white male in  America,...not only are you going to get no governmental representation,  you're going to get stuck with the bill for those who do!


White males now support a candidate who favors single-payer socialized medicine, bailouts, QE/ZIRP, social security, medicare, etc.

..as they (and all other demographic groups) have been doing for decades. 

Trump is 100% supportive of the modern welfare state and if he were to be elected, it would continue to expand. 




> Identity politics have been around for quite a while,....NAACP, La Raza, ADL,...
> 
> It's only natural for individual groups to push for their own representation.


It's only natural for dogs to each their own $#@!.

----------


## Smitty

This is the only place on the WWW where a fuggin' beehive talks chit to people.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> This is the only place on the WWW where a fuggin' beehive talks chit to people.


So you know that Trump is a socialist but don't care, correct?

...because you perceive him as being a _pro-white_ socialist?

----------


## Smitty

Hey man,...whatever gets you through the night.

I'm on the verge of getting banned right now,..so I cain't meanmoth nobody,...not even a fuggin' beehive.

----------


## AuH20

> So you know that Trump is a socialist but don't care, correct?
> 
> ...because you perceive him as being a _pro-white_ socialist?


I think Christopher Cantwell summed up the Trump phenomenon best. _If this political circus is solely about forcing preferences on others, then it's high time that mine are enforced._  We have two options. We either engage in the rotten process in a defensive measure through Trump or we let the power mad progs keep running the ball downfield. 

Cantwell also concluded that he never wanted it to end this way, but the lunatic progs will not stop. There can be no armistice when one party routinely violates the principle of non-aggression.  One side is wholly committed to smothering the other to death with government.

----------


## Smitty

Damed near got banned fer meanmouthin' a rock.

Lippin' off to a beehive might get me sent to the gas chamber.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I think Christopher Cantwell summed up the Trump phenomenon best. _If this political circus is solely about forcing preferences on others, then it's high time that mine are enforced._  We have two options. We either engage in the rotten process in a defensive measure through Trump or we let the power mad progs keep running the ball downfield. 
> 
> Cantwell also concluded that he never wanted it to end this way, but the lunatic progs will not stop. One side is wholly committed to smothering the other to death with government.


And what are you defending?

...take care not to name something which Trump has been against.

...like, for instance, free market capitalism, due process, or non-interventionism.

----------


## AuH20

> And what are you defending?
> 
> ...take care not to name something which Trump has been against.
> 
> ...like, for instance, free market capitalism, due process, or non-interventionism.


National sovereignty. Economic Independence.  

There are interviews stretching back 35 years where Trump has expressed very strong view points on trade and the role of the U.S. in the world.  That's the real shining light as far as I'm concerned, through his very muddled record. Now Trump could succumb to pressure and abandon his views. That's certainly possible, but we'll see. There are no guarantees. But the prospect of electing Hillary Clinton over the possible upside of Trump is sheer madness. We have literally nothing to lose. If Trump flames out, the alternate was Hillary.  You're back to square one.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> National sovereignty. Economic Independence.  
> 
> There are interviews stretching back 35 years where Trump has expressed very strong view points on trade and the role of the U.S. in the world.  That's the real shining light as far as I'm concerned, through his very muddled record. Now Trump could succumb to pressure and abandon his views. That's certainly possible, but we'll see. There are no guarantees. But the prospect of electing Hillary Clinton over the upside of Trump is sheer madness.


Negotiated trade deals in which each party lowers tariffs, loosens import restrictions, etc, do not undermine national sovereignty. 

Massive consumption taxes (as Trump has proposed, as much as 45%) do not benefit the taxed citizens.

If you're interested in jingo-jango flag-waving and poverty, Trump's your man.

I, on the other hand, would like prosperity.

----------


## AuH20

> Negotiated trade deals in which each party lowers tariffs, loosens import restrictions, etc, do not undermine national sovereignty. 
> 
> Massive consumption taxes (as Trump has proposed, as much as 45%) do not benefit the taxed citizens.
> 
> If you're interested in jingo-jango flag-waving and poverty, Trump's your man.
> 
> I, on the other hand, would like prosperity.


The threat of tariffs bolsters one's negotiating hand. The massive trade deficits we've been maintaining, runs in contrast to the principles of fair and equitable trade. China has nearly carte blanche access to our huge consumer market, while we are limited  in theirs, with a host of strings attached. You need a stern hand if you want to hammer out a fair bilateral treaty with them.

Another positive Trump policy entails his plans to reduce the corporate tax rate and pass a lenient tax holiday so reinject the trillions of dollars that left via corporate inversion. Money should not be sitting offshore under the threat of being unfairly penalized.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The threat of tariffs bolsters one's negotiating hand. The massive trade deficits we've been maintaining, runs in contrast to the principles of fair and equitable trade. China has nearly carte blanche access to our huge consumer market, while we are limited  in theirs, with a host of strings attached. You need a stern hand if you want to hammer out a fair bilateral treaty with them.


Trump's goal is not to work out a bilateral deal with lower tariffs/restrictions on both ends. 

Trump's a protectionist, he wants higher tariffs, as an end in itself.

As for a stern hand, lol, Trump's a spastic, near-retarded hand, incapable of profiting in the casino business even with a state-granted monopoly. 




> Another positive Trump policy entails his plans to reduce the corporate tax rate and pass a lenient tax holiday so reclaim the trillions of dollars that left via corporate inversion. Money should not be sitting offshore under the threat of being unfairly penalized.


Tax cuts mean nothing without spending cuts.

Tax cuts without spending cuts are, in fact, impossible. 

They just mean a change in the form of taxation: from income tax to inflation, for instance.

----------


## TheCount

> The massive trade deficits we've been maintaining, runs in contrast to the principles of fair and equitable trade.


Why does a trade deficit mean that the trade is unfair?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> But I have loyalty prioritized over intelligence. Loyalty is a rare, invaluable trait. But as we've seen, many of these new immigrants don't even fulfill that critical criteria. They want to enjoy the material benefits of the U.S. while aiming to transform the country into a facsimile of their ultra socialistic homelands.


And when their loyalty is compromised or changes? What then? You want intelligence as it leads to Liberty while low IQ leads to savagery.Its great to see that others can see this, and want to stop the damage they do....

It is almost like they have a genetic pre requisite to ruin that which is better then they can create.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I think Christopher Cantwell summed up the Trump phenomenon best. _If this political circus is solely about forcing preferences on others, then it's high time that mine are enforced._  We have two options. We either engage in the rotten process in a defensive measure through Trump or we let the power mad progs keep running the ball downfield. 
> 
> Cantwell also concluded that he never wanted it to end this way, but the lunatic progs will not stop. There can be no armistice when one party routinely violates the principle of non-aggression.  One side is wholly committed to smothering the other to death with government.


This. If someone is going to do the shooting, I want to have the rifle.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Trump's goal is not to work out a bilateral deal with lower tariffs/restrictions on both ends. 
> 
> Trump's a protectionist, he wants higher tariffs, as an end in itself.
> 
> As for a stern hand, lol, Trump's a spastic, near-retarded hand, incapable of profiting in the casino business even with a state-granted monopoly. 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax cuts mean nothing without spending cuts.
> ...


You would be shocked at the savings when you deport tens of millions of welfare users, and reduce legal immigration.

As for protectionism, say what you will, but you can not look at China and Japan and say it does not work out very well for them.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Not the alt-right.  Most of the alt-right people I come across think that having principles is for "cucks."


No, when the so called principles insure you lose elections, rights, wealth, run the risk of being replaced in your nation then those are false principles.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> If the "brown people" entered the country illegally, you betcha.  
> 
> 
> Do you hate white people?  If so, why?    Is it code for American citizens and the forebears who founded, fought for, settled, made all kinds of inventions and built the country?   If so, why the hatred?  Please explain.
> 
> You do get that there is a differentiation between American citizens and the rest of the world, right?  Do you really believe that American citizens can afford the welfare system that our government has already put in place for our own citizens, much less everyone else you seem to want to include.  
> 
> 
> So, your argument seems to be that the solution is to provide welfare to the entire world.
> ...



Those like him never reply back with why they dislike the idea of Whites being dominate and in control of the nations they created because they have no answers.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Many of the founders and people around them were immigrants.


He is why you are wrong. All but what 5 of the Founders were born in the colonies, making the native born persons. Those that were not where follow Englishmen who moved to another area of the Empire, so they were follow countrymen who moved within the existing nation.

Would you claim a man who moved from Michigan to Nevada to be an immigrant since he did not leave one nation for another? No you would. Your lies are falling apart and you have to make last ditch efforts to keep them awake.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Note that your charts show LEGAL immigrants. Not illegals. Legal immigrants are eligible after they have been in the country for five years.


Thank you for making our point against legal immigration as well.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> And once again your answer is to ban brown people while the welfare state grows unabated. It reads as "more welfare for whites please." The charts are good, but they may have made the opposite point you intended.
> 
> re: Molyneux. Appeal to authority will get no one anywhere. Molyneux has on occasion after occasion ceded reason to confirmation bias and doesn't seem to see the difference anymore.


We can avoid adding more people to the welfare ranks by not allowing them into the nation to begin with, great to see you can not understand this.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> lol... that is not MY answer.. I'm not even voting for Trump. I'm just presenting the argument that if we treat illegal immigrants like prostitutes and pay them to come here, the data seems to show that it will be impossible to ever have small government because the immigrants vote for bigger government and more welfare, while using more welfare than the your average citizen. More force will be used against white people and native borns to take their money over the long haul than would be used to control the border.


How can they not see that? Never mind the cost of wealth and Liberty in fighting crime and terrorism linked to mass immigration/open borders.

----------


## undergroundrr

> We can avoid adding more people to the welfare ranks by not allowing them into the nation to begin with, great to see you can not understand this.


Which is to say "more welfare for whites."  I almost never see trumpies calling for actually dismantling the welfare state.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> You would be shocked at the savings when you deport tens of millions of welfare users, and reduce legal immigration.


You might be shocked to learn that immigrants use less welfare per capita and are more likely to be employed than natives. 




> As for protectionism, say what you will, but you can not look at China and Japan and say it does not work out very well for them.


O, yes: nearly 30 years of stagnation in Japan as the government desperately tries to prop up the bloated export sector. 

China going the same way.

----------


## dannno

> You might be shocked to learn that immigrants use less welfare per capita and are more likely to be employed than natives.


_The title of the video is in the picture below, links to sources in the description of the video on youtube:_

----------


## r3volution 3.0

^^^Those leave out the two largest welfare programs: Social Security and Medicare.

When you include all welfare programs, immigrants consume far fewer welfare dollars per capita than natives.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> No, when the so called principles insure you lose elections, rights, wealth, run the risk of being replaced in your nation then those are false principles.


And what are those principles?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> ^^^Those leave out the two largest welfare programs: Social Security and Medicare.
> 
> When you include all welfare programs, immigrants consume far fewer welfare dollars per capita than natives.


They have a rate of usage still higher, but great to see you support import welfare voters.




> And what are those principles?


Open borders
Mass immigration
Cultural relativism
Support for "foreign interests" 
"Compromise" with the left is a mandate
Arguing within the limits/rules set by the left 
Not welding power when you win elections because to do so would "make us just as bad as they" and other such moronic acts of self sabotage.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> _The title of the video is in the picture below, links to sources in the description of the video on youtube:_


Why do they repeat these well know lies?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Which is to say "more welfare for whites."  I almost never see trumpies calling for actually dismantling the welfare state.


His job is to stop the bleeding, IQ moronic trade that creates millions of people in need of welfare, and imported more clients for the welfare state IE mass 3rd world immigration.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Cuckold is actually the ideal term for many of these knowingly blind dopes. Multinational corporations feed us this lie of unfettered immigration through clever egalitarian language and some people just swallow every drop of deceit. The ruse is that YOU ARE BEING SYSTEMATICALLY REPLACED BECAUSE YOU AREN'T MALLEABLE ENOUGH FOR THEIR AGENDA. Corporate America wants mindless proles that will roll over and play dead upon receiving a tasty treat.


Why cant people understand this?

----------


## timosman



----------


## idiom

Lol Israel has 5 times as many refugees per capita than the US. It is on its way to matching Scandinavian countries.

But don't let facts slow down anyone's white nationalism.

Here at fact-free forums we make up what suits today's racist diatribe.

We might even try to look like we care about individuals and liberty.

----------


## juleswin

> Lol Israel has 5 times as many refugees per capita than the US. It is on its way to matching Scandinavian countries.
> 
> But don't let facts slow down anyone's white nationalism.
> 
> Here at fact-free forums we make up what suits today's racist diatribe.
> 
> We might even try to look like we care about individuals and liberty.


But unlike the US, most of those refugees and immigrants are workers who are not part of the society i.e. they come and go.

----------


## juleswin

> 


Dueling videos 

Stefan could have asked himself the question since he is also a Jewish person.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> 


God Bless this man.




> Lol Israel has 5 times as many refugees per capita than the US. It is on its way to matching Scandinavian countries.
> 
> But don't let facts slow down anyone's white nationalism.
> 
> Here at fact-free forums we make up what suits today's racist diatribe.


You do know they count jews flee Europe as "refugees", right? You do know they do count workers as "refugees" right? You do know they inflate those numbers to get extra money from the U.N, right? 

You do know calling people "racists" makes you look like a ignorant person and does not end the debate, right?




> We might even try to look like we care about individuals and liberty.


Why should we care about the Liberty of those who will vote it away, or work against our interests?




> But unlike the US, most of those refugees and immigrants are workers who are not part of the society i.e. they come and go.


Facts do not matter to him, only 'muh feels".

----------


## BUTSRSLY

SOME OF YOU FOOLS THOUGHT HE WAS A PAINFULLY WHITE MAN WHO JUST HAPPENED TO BE BALD

BUT THE REST OF US ALWAYS KNEW HE WAS JUST A DIRTY SKINHEAD ALL ALONG.





BORN THAT WAY

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> SOME OF YOU FOOLS THOUGHT HE WAS A PAINFULLY WHITE MAN WHO JUST HAPPENED TO BE BALD
> 
> BUT THE REST OF US ALWAYS KNEW HE WAS JUST A DIRTY SKINHEAD ALL ALONG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BORN THAT WAY




The Leftist hate him because he uses facts, logic, humor and acting to make a valid point.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Does it bother anybody here that Stefan Molyneux, who used to be a hard core anarcho-capitalist, is now essentially a nationalist?
> 
> After being convinced of the following precepts:
> -Crime is related to genetics
> -IQ is related to genetics
> -Cultural compatibility is necessary for a free society, and also largely genetic
> 
> He's basically totally flipped his mindset into supporting strong borders, strong communities and cultural values, and even a strong religion. He now regularly makes videos on the genetics of crime and the heritability of intelligence, and virulently supports Donald Trump.
> 
> So did he just go insane? Or does he have a point?


I thought nationalism is just putting your country first.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I thought nationalism is just putting your country first.


I always watch his videos while cleaning my gear....

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Lol Israel has 5 times as many refugees per capita than the US. It is on its way to matching Scandinavian countries.
> 
> But don't let facts slow down anyone's white nationalism.
> 
> Here at fact-free forums we make up what suits today's racist diatribe.
> 
> We might even try to look like we care about individuals and liberty.


"In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
Constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care"

And if I recall, New Zealand has some of the tougher immigration requirements of anyone, right?  Requirements that NZ actually enforces.  Is that fair to say, Idiom?

Given that New Zealand is an island, you probably don't have much of an issue with illegal aliens streaming across your border and murdering citizens on a daily basis.  And millions going on the dole the minute they arrive; free education, free healthcare, welfare, etc.   But, tell me, how many Syrian refugees is New Zealand accepting?  What about African refugees?  I'm wondering how long, what you are so clearly proud of and should be, would last if you were.  Because those seats in Parliament?  It wouldn't take long for your nirvana to be voted out and replaced with a welfare state to benefit those who wanted handouts.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> "In New Zealand:
> The Coastguard is a Charity
> Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
> The DMV is a private non-profit
> Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
> The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
> 5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
> A tax return has 4 fields
> Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
> ...


This. I have noticed these open border zealots love to invent reasons why the people who went to the Moon, can not do what other nations are already doing.

----------


## undergroundrr

> "In New Zealand:


Really, you site a true socialist ultra-welfare state as a beacon of policy wisdom?

Plus, it's REALLY, REALLY hard for your hated stinky, dumb brown people to get there.

----------


## Athan

> Does it bother anybody here that Stefan Molyneux, who used to be a hard core anarcho-capitalist, is now essentially a nationalist?


Nah, I don't have a problem with him. I'm hispanic, and I personally view it as stemming from cultures too dependent on government creating massive social problems through dependency and cultivating entitlement. You are making mountains out of ant-hills by being concerned with molyneux or whatever his name is.

Let's be honest some people want to simplify a solution in a time of gross inequity, injustice, social upheaval, and growing violence. To be fair, I never really listened to him because his rants go on for a LONG time which eats bandwith. Keep in mind, I've been on /pol/ on the chans for so long that the dude's views are tame compared to where I mingle. Even if it is cultural (hint: I believe it is), libertarians need to ask themselves these questions:

*1. "Is it wise to allow cultures that are innate enemies to the ideas liberty in our borders?*
Remember, we kicked out the redcoats and their loyalists after the Revolution for a REASON. That reason be risk of treason. Sharia for instance and cultural marxism is dead set on destroying the liberty of Americans.

*2. "How long do you think that liberty will last if you don't want to kick out enemies either individuals or organizations that are constantly putting our liberty under siege, and are you willing to let your kids suffer with growing threats to their liberty once you are gone because you refuse to cross some personal ethical line?"*

*3. "If you don't think removal of these hostile cultures, individuals, and organizations is the answer, is libertarianism going to be as a movement impotent to respond with no other options?"*

Libertarians NEED to make an existential decision. We can't keep having liberty hold on by a thread every year simply to appease our morals. Our children aren't going to have the liberty we had at this rate, and their children are going to be no more than slaves. Steven's views are very much on par with what Sam Harris says of the religious right being right about islam. (Paraphrased: "Yes, they may be bigots, but they are still more correct about islam than the regressive left.")

----------


## undergroundrr

Ugh.  I wish the term Cultural Marxism will go away.  If it remains in currency, it will obscure the vital attention people need to pay to the unutterable and unforgiveable evil that is _actual_ Marxism.  "Cuck" and "Cultural Marxism" are a brand of Newspeak.

And by the way, real Marxism is strongly for vacuum-sealed borders and systematic religious suppression.  I wouldn't be shocked if all these alt-righters start idolizing Stalin.  True Marxism is a much quicker and more effective way to achieve what they're aiming for.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I wouldn't be shocked if all these alt-righters start idolizing Stalin.  True Marxism is a much quicker and more effective way to achieve what they're aiming for.


I do not believe that you understand these people at all.

Do not fear understanding.  Understanding one's opponent -- no matter how much you hate them -- is a vital prerequisite to intelligent action.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Really, you site a true socialist ultra-welfare state as a beacon of policy wisdom?
> 
> Plus, it's REALLY, REALLY hard for your hated stinky, dumb brown people to get there.


New Zealand is consistently ranked in the top five or even top three freest markets on Earth.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Ugh. I wish the term Cultural Marxism will go away. If it remains in currency, it will obscure the vital attention people need to pay to the unutterable and unforgiveable evil that is _actual_ Marxism. "Cuck" and "Cultural Marxism" are a brand of Newspeak.


Why? Cultural Marxism was a real sociological theory that sought to bring about the end of capitalism by undermining families, churches, sexual norms and other social and cultural hierarchies. What "social liberals" want is very often quite in line with the cultural Marxist tradition.

The main theorists behind Cultural Marxism (Frankfurt School and the like) were anti-Soviet, BTW.

----------


## undergroundrr

> I do not believe that you understand these people at all.
> 
> Do not fear understanding.  Understanding one's opponent -- no matter how much you hate them -- is a vital prerequisite to intelligent action.


Thank you, Yoda.  Presumption of hate is presumptive.  It's enough to observe their actions and arguments and draw conclusions.  But I reserve the right to hate an agenda.

I would argue that, as with neoconservatism, Marxism is at the core of their intent.  The alt-right's formulation of the term Cultural Marxism is even more confused and misguided than when Lukacs and Adorno and whomever originally formulated it.  In fact, if you ask these people who the Frankfurt School is, they'll be just as blank-faced as if you had asked them their favorite interpretation of Pierrot Lunaire.

At least as it manifests itself on RPF, the alt-right has nothing to do with libertarianism and everything to do with authoritarianism. Its embrace of trump is natural and its embrace of Stalin would be even moreso.  Yes, people from /pol/ and similar enclaves are going to undermine the liberty movement anywhere they find it, just like Stormfronters and racist newsletters did their part in sinking Ron Paul's candidacy in 2008 & 2012.  

That stuff is still hurting Rand Paul.  Despite his faults, Gary Johnson is thriving because he's free of that baggage.

Respect for other cultures, DNA mingling through intermarriage, religious tolerance, blacks protesting police brutality are attacked as PC.  This isn't just the alt-right overcompensating for years of rampant political correctness.  They're taking the ultimate collectivist fallacy and running for the end zone with it.

----------


## undergroundrr

> The main theorists behind Cultural Marxism (Frankfurt School and the like) were anti-Soviet, BTW.


They were absolutely Marxist to a man.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Thank you, Yoda. Presumption of hate is presumptive. It's enough to observe their actions and arguments and draw conclusions. But I reserve the right to hate an agenda.
> 
> I would argue that, as with neoconservatism, Marxism is at the core of their intent. The alt-right's formulation of the term Cultural Marxism is even more confused and misguided than when Lukacs and Adorno and whomever originally formulated it. In fact, if you ask these people who the Frankfurt School is, they'll be just as blank-faced as if you had asked them their favorite interpretation of Pierrot Lunaire.


If you think the alt-right don't know who the Frankfurt School was, you really aren't paying attention at all. If anything, most of them put far too much emphasis on the Frankfurts. Helmuth is right, you don't understand your opponents.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> They were absolutely Marxist to a man.


That doesn't address anything I said. Which "they" are you referring to? I certainly never said anyone wasn't a Marxist.

----------


## undergroundrr

> That doesn't address anything I said. Which "they" are you referring to? I certainly never said anyone wasn't a Marxist.


Yes it does.  Why would you care whether a Marxist is pro-Soviet?  Is Bernie Sanders saying how pro-Soviet he is?  The issues are Marxism/socialism itself, not some implementation or geographical region.  Frankfurt School theorists spent a lot of ink trying to explain why the revolution didn't work where capitalism was strong.  And they were kind of full of s*** just like the alt-right is.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Yes it does. Why would you care whether a Marxist is pro-Soviet?


...Because I want to understand how people think. Something you seem to have little regard for.




> Is Bernie Sanders saying how pro-Soviet he is?


What does that have to do with anything?




> The issues are Marxism/socialism itself, not some implementation or geographical region.


That's true to an extent, but the problems of the Soviet Union and the problems with the Frankfurt School are not the same. There's overlap like there is in all Marxist, post-Marxist and leftist philosophies, but you can't argue with these people or engage with their ideas if you don't understand what they advocate or how they differ.





> Frankfurt School theorists spent a lot of ink trying to explain why the revolution didn't work where capitalism was strong. And they were kind of full of s*** just like the alt-right is.


That has nothing to do with what I said.

----------


## Athan

> Ugh.  I wish the term Cultural Marxism will go away.  If it remains in currency, it will obscure the vital attention people need to pay to the unutterable and unforgiveable evil that is _actual_ Marxism.  "Cuck" and "Cultural Marxism" are a brand of Newspeak.
> 
> And by the way, real Marxism is strongly for vacuum-sealed borders and systematic religious suppression.  I wouldn't be shocked if all these alt-righters start idolizing Stalin.  True Marxism is a much quicker and more effective way to achieve what they're aiming for.


I'm guessing you haven't heard of the Frankfurt school, you are keeping your eyes and ears deep in the ground.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Thank you, Yoda.  Presumption of hate is presumptive.  It's enough to observe their actions and arguments and draw conclusions.  But I reserve the right to hate an agenda.


 No problem, Padawan!   

New wisdom to ponder: you can tell yourself you "hate the sin but love the sinner," but your brain, glands, and nervous system do not know the difference. It's a fine line, so fine it's biologically invisible. If you loathe and despise someone's actions, you loathe the actor, at least on some level, and to a great degree. 




> At least as it manifests itself on RPF, the alt-right has nothing to do with libertarianism and everything to do with authoritarianism. Its embrace of trump is natural and its embrace of Stalin would be even more so.


 Lukacs.... Adorno..... interpretation of Pierrot Lunaire...  come on, you are making this way too complicated. Which is more likely:

Your elaborate theory about everyone on RPF becoming crypto-Stalanist authoritarians -- people who are (you'd say 'were') every bit as libertarian as you, every bit as bona fide, well-read, and passionate about Liberty. Or,

Many libertarians went a direction in electoral politics you don't agree with. They seem to be attracted, in large numbers, to ideas and rhetoric you personally can't relate to.  They turned out to be different than you!

What does Occam's Razor tell you?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Really, you site a true socialist ultra-welfare state as a beacon of policy wisdom?
> 
> Plus, it's REALLY, REALLY hard for your hated stinky, dumb brown people to get there.


You mean they protect their border and do not needlessly import useless people.




> Nah, I don't have a problem with him. I'm hispanic, and I personally view it as stemming from cultures too dependent on government creating massive social problems through dependency and cultivating entitlement. You are making mountains out of ant-hills by being concerned with molyneux or whatever his name is.
> 
> Let's be honest some people want to simplify a solution in a time of gross inequity, injustice, social upheaval, and growing violence. To be fair, I never really listened to him because his rants go on for a LONG time which eats bandwith. Keep in mind, I've been on /pol/ on the chans for so long that the dude's views are tame compared to where I mingle. Even if it is cultural (hint: I believe it is), libertarians need to ask themselves these questions:
> 
> *1. "Is it wise to allow cultures that are innate enemies to the ideas liberty in our borders?*
> Remember, we kicked out the redcoats and their loyalists after the Revolution for a REASON. That reason be risk of treason. Sharia for instance and cultural marxism is dead set on destroying the liberty of Americans.
> 
> *2. "How long do you think that liberty will last if you don't want to kick out enemies either individuals or organizations that are constantly putting our liberty under siege, and are you willing to let your kids suffer with growing threats to their liberty once you are gone because you refuse to cross some personal ethical line?"*
> 
> ...





> Ugh.  I wish the term Cultural Marxism will go away.  If it remains in currency, it will obscure the vital attention people need to pay to the unutterable and unforgiveable evil that is _actual_ Marxism.  "Cuck" and "Cultural Marxism" are a brand of Newspeak.
> 
> And by the way, real Marxism is strongly for vacuum-sealed borders and systematic religious suppression.  I wouldn't be shocked if all these alt-righters start idolizing Stalin.  True Marxism is a much quicker and more effective way to achieve what they're aiming for.


So you want us to stop using accurate langaunge? Please go on.

And real Marxism is strongly for clean drinking water too....So I guess we should not have it because of that reason?

Hitler drove a car, therefore if you drive a car, you are Hitler.




> I do not believe that you understand these people at all.
> 
> Do not fear understanding.  Understanding one's opponent -- no matter how much you hate them -- is a vital prerequisite to intelligent action.



Of course he does not, he the Libertarian lowbrow version of the NRO/weekly Standard RINOs and their cocktail parties bash the "low class rubs" for "wanting a secure border", "not understanding the value of increasing GDP".




> New Zealand is consistently ranked in the top five or even top three freest markets on Earth.


Oh no, FACTS!




> Thank you, Yoda.  Presumption of hate is presumptive.  It's enough to observe their actions and arguments and draw conclusions.  But I reserve the right to hate an agenda.
> 
> I would argue that, as with neoconservatism, Marxism is at the core of their intent.  The alt-right's formulation of the term Cultural Marxism is even more confused and misguided than when Lukacs and Adorno and whomever originally formulated it.  In fact, if you ask these people who the Frankfurt School is, they'll be just as blank-faced as if you had asked them their favorite interpretation of Pierrot Lunaire.



You are projecting just because you may not have know what it was does  not mean we did not know, we did and do understand cultural marxism and are working to "physical remove" it.





> At least as it manifests itself on RPF, the alt-right has nothing to do with libertarianism and everything to do with authoritarianism.


It does, we just understand that open borders, mass immigration, cultural marxism, and "the moral highroad" do not protect Liberty and since they do not we need to stop them.




> Its embrace of trump is natural and its embrace of Stalin would be even moreso.  Yes, people from /pol/ and similar enclaves are going to undermine the liberty movement anywhere they find it, just like Stormfronters and racist newsletters did their part in sinking Ron Paul's candidacy in 2008 & 2012.


We like the man, where is the harm in this? Why can we not make the same claim about you and Ron Paul.

Sure it was "racist newsletters" and "stormfronters" that did Ron Paul in, it was not the Neo Cons/Establishment that changed the rules as the Convention, it was not the lying press, it was not his "we can win by playing by the rules" mindset? 







> That stuff is still hurting Rand Paul.  Despite his faults, Gary Johnson is thriving because he's free of that baggage.


No, Johnson is sinking himself, his positions and moronic statements do that very well.




> Respect for other cultures, DNA mingling through intermarriage, religious tolerance, blacks protesting police brutality are attacked as PC.  This isn't just the alt-right overcompensating for years of rampant political correctness.  They're taking the ultimate collectivist fallacy and running for the end zone with it.


Why should we respect people who work to take away, reduce, or destroy our nation, culture, rights, wealth, future, etc?

Oh but it is a massive Backlash, and it has not even began yet. 

Really? So your universalism is not the ultimate collectivist fallacy? 




> If you think the alt-right don't know who the Frankfurt School was, you really aren't paying attention at all. If anything, most of them put far too much emphasis on the Frankfurts. Helmuth is right, you don't understand your opponents.




Clearly not, if he understood us he would know if anything we have common enemies.

----------


## undergroundrr

> And real Marxism is strongly for clean drinking water too....So I guess we should not have it because of that reason?
> 
> It does, we just understand that open borders, mass immigration, cultural marxism, and "the moral highroad" do not protect Liberty and since they do not we need to stop them.


 @timosman posted Stalin's last speech elsewhere on RPF.  You should check it out.  Stalin talks about peace the way you talk about "liberty."  You may find you have a lot in common.  Maybe Stalin drove a car too.

----------


## undergroundrr

> No problem, Padawan!   
> 
> New wisdom to ponder: you can tell yourself you "hate the sin but love the sinner," but your brain, glands, and nervous system do not know the difference. It's a fine line, so fine it's biologically invisible. If you loathe and despise someone's actions, you loathe the actor, at least on some level, and to a great degree.


Then we do not all sin?

My sense of wisdom comes to a different conclusion than yours.  I can sustain an immense love for somebody with whose actions and words I disagree.  But it took one who made a good (perfect) example...

But alas, liberals are the compassionate, sensitive, inclusive ones.  Molyneux perpetuates the sad misperception that the role of the libertarian is to accuse, exclude, segregate and alienate.  And it's easy, Yoda.  Like Emperor Palpatine showed, all that's needed is to summon up a little anger.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Then we do not all sin?
> 
> My sense of wisdom comes to a different conclusion than yours.  I can sustain an immense love for somebody with whose actions and words I disagree.  But it took one who made a good (perfect) example...
> 
> But alas, liberals are the compassionate, sensitive, inclusive ones.  Molyneux perpetuates the sad misperception that the role of the libertarian is to accuse, exclude, segregate and alienate.  And it's easy, Yoda.  Like Emperor Palpatine showed, all that's needed is to summon up a little anger.


Freedom includes the right to exclude, segregate and if some people feel "alienate" that is their fault, we can not control how others feel nor should we base our actions or limit our rights based on their emotions.

Anger with just cause is not wrong. He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but even the good to do wrong. -St John Chrysostom 

But hey base your views on life, Liberty, based on a movie.

----------


## Athan

> @timosman posted Stalin's last speech elsewhere on RPF.  You should check it out.  Stalin talks about peace the way you talk about "liberty."  You may find you have a lot in common.  Maybe Stalin drove a car too.


I have another quote:

*"Look at the immigration problem in Eurape. It's like 'hey how would you like to bring in a bunch of people that hate your guts and want to kill you, and want to use up your resources, and attack your children and $#@! like that. And really just despise everything you stand for and believe in?"*

Men who stand for liberty will say "no". "$#@! you." And *that's* who we need. That's what our liberty needs. That's what libertarianism needs. That is what our republic needs. That is what our children need if they hope to HAVE any liberty left for themselves. _We don't even need to do anything violent_, as long as we together realize as a movement and people that hostile elements in our own country will NOT cease their attacks on our liberty till they are deported and rooted out. And we sure as hell are going to root them out and kick their ass out. We don't even HAVE to be dicks about it. We can simply provide everyone notice that in the future, being a cultural marxist or jihadist supporting individual will get your ass deported. So you got your notice to not do it. And nothing will happen to you TILL you do it. Just like any $#@!ing law on the books currently for dumb pointless $#@! like marijuana. Treason is a thing. 

We need men who will stand up for liberty. Liberty is under no minor threat. Your views are needed during pre-1913. 

Further, you make a VERY big mistake: We HAVE been patient, we HAVE sought peace, we HAVE petitioned, we HAVE been courteous, we HAVE practiced civility and good will with our neighbors for DECADES. You are mistaking us for leftist, marxists, and islamists who historically are some of the most violent sons of bitches.

If we keep letting things go as they are, eventually fascism and I mean REAL fascism IS going to take hold. The overton window is shifting. And if we keep up with thumbs up our ass by keeping up with your views, its going to swing heil hitler so fast your head's going to spin and you are going to wonder what the $#@! happened.

----------


## undergroundrr

> But hey base your views on life, Liberty, based on a movie.[/FONT][/COLOR]


Lol. You missed the context.

I wouldn't for a second limit someone's ability to exclude, segregate or alienate as long as they're not violating someone's property or person in the process. But they're qualities I feel justified in discouraging.

Your quote is great.  Perhaps I should be angrier about trump.

With a little googling, these quotes by St. John Chrysostom also came up:

"Anger is a strong fire, consuming all things its path; it wastes the body and corrupts the body, and renders a man base and odious to look upon. And if it were possible for the angry man to see himself at the time of his anger he would not need any other admonition, for there is nothing less pleasing than an angry countenance. Anger is an intoxicant and more wretched than God does not insist or desire that we should mourn in agony of heart: Rather, it is His wish that out of love for Him we should rejoice with laughter in our soul."

"Lift up and stretch out your hands, not to heaven, but to the poor; for if you stretch forth your hands to the poor, you have reached the summit of heaven, but if you lift up your hands in prayer without sharing with the poor, it is worth nothing."

You might pass these on to Stef if you get a chance.

----------


## undergroundrr

> being a cultural marxist or jihadist supporting individual will get your ass deported.


Oh for heaven's sake. By what means would you draft a law against cultural Marxists? Or would it just be a general witch hunt? White hoods have a certain flair.

I'm serious.  I see this term thrown around.  Now we have a deportation order.  

Be clear.  If a person does X, Y and Z then they are a cultural Marxist and will be deported.  Define X, Y and Z.

----------


## Athan

Son, the ideology of the white hoods are GROWING in number which is why I'm telling you to stop being in no uncertain terms a p#ssy about our liberty. In fact, from what I've been observing, red, black, and white with Hugo Boss is becoming more chic since white hoods is to passe for them. I don't think you understand what the regressive left is creating with their insane bull$#@!. Fascism is refining its arguments and is winning converts. 

And frankly, its clear you have NO solutions to get us back on the path towards having a proper republic with a good sense of liberty other than some "serenity now" bull$#@!. Liberty will always be in real peril and never a reachable goal under your tutelage. It is time we stop trying to be high and mighty and understand why dudes like Steven Moleneyx is starting to go nationalist. I don't even see that dude's channel but I can tell you where he probably is getting his ideas from.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I have another quote:
> 
> *"Look at the immigration problem in Eurape. It's like 'hey how would you like to bring in a bunch of people that hate your guts and want to kill you, and want to use up your resources, and attack your children and $#@! like that. And really just despise everything you stand for and believe in?"*
> 
> Men who stand for liberty will say "no". "$#@! you." And *that's* who we need. That's what our liberty needs. That's what libertarianism needs. That is what our republic needs. That is what our children need if they hope to HAVE any liberty left for themselves. _We don't even need to do anything violent_, as long as we together realize as a movement and people that hostile elements in our own country will NOT cease their attacks on our liberty till they are deported and rooted out. And we sure as hell are going to root them out and kick their ass out. We don't even HAVE to be dicks about it. We can simply provide everyone notice that in the future, being a cultural marxist or jihadist supporting individual will get your ass deported. So you got your notice to not do it. And nothing will happen to you TILL you do it. Just like any $#@!ing law on the books currently for dumb pointless $#@! like marijuana. Treason is a thing. 
> 
> We need men who will stand up for liberty. Liberty is under no minor threat. Your views are needed during pre-1913. 
> 
> Further, you make a VERY big mistake: We HAVE been patient, we HAVE sought peace, we HAVE petitioned, we HAVE been courteous, we HAVE practiced civility and good will with our neighbors for DECADES. You are mistaking us for leftist, marxists, and islamists who historically are some of the most violent sons of bitches.
> ...


He does not and will not understand until it is too late...

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Oh for heaven's sake. By what means would you draft a law against cultural Marxists? Or would it just be a general witch hunt? White hoods have a certain flair.
> 
> I'm serious.  I see this term thrown around.  Now we have a deportation order.  
> 
> Be clear.  If a person does X, Y and Z then they are a cultural Marxist and will be deported.  Define X, Y and Z.


No, you define it. 

If being a Cultural Marxist Parasite has an ever increasing price it it, fewer and fewer people will spew this horrors and we will be all the better for it.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Son, the ideology of the white hoods are GROWING in number which is why I'm telling you to stop being in no uncertain terms a p#ssy about our liberty. In fact, from what I've been observing, red, black, and white with Hugo Boss is becoming more chic since white hoods is to passe for them. I don't think you understand what the regressive left is creating with their insane bull$#@!. Fascism is refining its arguments and is winning converts. 
> 
> And frankly, its clear you have NO solutions to get us back on the path towards having a proper republic with a good sense of liberty other than some "serenity now" bull$#@!. Liberty will always be in real peril and never a reachable goal under your tutelage. It is time we stop trying to be high and mighty and understand why dudes like Steven Moleneyx is starting to go nationalist. I don't even see that dude's channel but I can tell you where he probably is getting his ideas from.


He has no ideas, plans, etc. He just $#@!s on everyone elses ideas, plans, goals, and offers nothing, and because of that he does not matter. He is not a asset but a burden at best.

Watch his vids, he is amazing..

----------


## Athan

Hell no, dude talks way to much and eats bandwidth! lol Even years ago when he was just an anarcho cap. 
Besides, believe me, he is behind on the curb compared to where I get news now. 

What he doesn't understand is that a LOT of libertarians are getting frustrated with inaction and are going fascist/nationalist. For every few we get educated and redpilled, fascist thinkers are taking two libertarians that are just pissed at all they are seeing.

We have found ourselves in an odd place where we have legit long term solutions and answers, but no way to forcefully apply them because we voluntarily handicap ourselves.

----------


## juleswin

Stephan is not a nationalist or an anarchist, "he is what is necessary". Like it was said in the video, Stefan is living the motto that says "it is better to live on your feet than die on your knees". This is what Stephan is, a shapeless amoeba, a color changing chameleon, a business man, a shameless opportunist who will sell you anything he can get away with selling.




Video run time is 49 seconds

----------


## undergroundrr

> He has no ideas, plans, etc. He just $#@!s on everyone elses ideas, plans, goals, and offers nothing, and because of that he does not matter. He is not a asset but a burden at best.
> 
> Watch his vids, he is amazing..


Wow. That's the best assessment of Stef I've seen in a while. But trust me - he used to be a really interesting and insightful commentator.

----------


## undergroundrr

> No, you define it. 
> 
> If being a Cultural Marxist Parasite has an ever increasing price it it, fewer and fewer people will spew this horrors and we will be all the better for it.


As I suggested, you're just regurgitating alt-right memes without having any idea what you actually mean.

Regardless, the cultural Marxist deportation scheme is punishment for thought crime.  I guess if you get trump into power, he can seize control of the NSA and can carry out that agenda through the proper means.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Stephan is not a nationalist or an anarchist, "he is what is necessary". Like it was said in the video, Stefan is living the motto that says "it is better to live on your feet than die on your knees". This is what Stephan is, a shapeless amoeba, a color changing chameleon, a business man, a shameless opportunist who will sell you anything he can get away with selling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Video run time is 49 seconds


So you are mad because he will not fall on your sword with you..

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Wow. That's the best assessment of Stef I've seen in a while. But trust me - he used to be a really interesting and insightful commentator.


No, I was talking about you and your "muh principals" LIBs.

----------


## undergroundrr

> No, I was talking about you and your "muh principals" LIBs.


Please pardon the confusion.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> As I suggested, you're just regurgitating alt-right memes without having any idea what you actually mean.
> 
> Regardless, the cultural Marxist deportation scheme is punishment for thought crime.  I guess if you get trump into power, he can seize control of the NSA and can carry out that agenda through the proper means.


We know what they mean, you clearly do not or do not care.

Still a better outcome for them and us, you know what their punishment for thought crime, or just asking for more firewood, or not clapping loud enough? Gulag or firing squad and yet you think we are just as bad, or somehow worse then these people.

----------


## puppetmaster

> Hell no, dude talks way to much and eats bandwidth! lol Even years ago when he was just an anarcho cap. 
> Besides, believe me, he is behind on the curb compared to where I get news now. 
> 
> What he doesn't understand is that a LOT of libertarians are getting frustrated with inaction and are going fascist/nationalist. For every few we get educated and redpilled, fascist thinkers are taking two libertarians that are just pissed at all they are seeing.
> 
> We have found ourselves in an odd place where we have legit long term solutions and answers, but no way to forcefully apply them because we voluntarily handicap ourselves.


 This is correct information on losing libertarians or at the least turning people away from the thought process

----------


## idiom

> "In New Zealand:
> The Coastguard is a Charity
> Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
> The DMV is a private non-profit
> Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
> The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
> 5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
> A tax return has 4 fields
> Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
> ...


I think the US should have walls and tight controls on immigration.

Proportionally we have high flows of immigration and take a tonne of refugees. We do a very good job of integrating them however.

Yes, if people wanted a welfare state they could vote for it, but people are pretty realistic here. An educated populace not far removed from real world economics is what makes democracy work well.

----------


## idiom

> Really, you site a true socialist ultra-welfare state as a beacon of policy wisdom?
> 
> Plus, it's REALLY, REALLY hard for your hated stinky, dumb brown people to get there.


Its really hard to get here illegally, but pretty easy to do it legally. That is why we have such an heterogeneous population.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Its really hard to get here illegally, but pretty easy to do it legally. That is why we have such an heterogeneous population.


No, they can walk across, as for coming legally we largely let in the wrong ones....

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I think the US should have walls and tight controls on immigration.
> 
> Proportionally we have high flows of immigration and take a tonne of refugees. We do a very good job of integrating them however.
> 
> Yes, if people wanted a welfare state they could vote for it, but people are pretty realistic here. An educated populace not far removed from real world economics is what makes democracy work well.


We have entire areas of the nation that is nothing more the Northern Mexico, what are you talking about, we need to stop letting in millions of people...

----------


## idiom

> We have entire areas of the nation that is nothing more the Northern Mexico, what are you talking about, we need to stop letting in millions of people...


New Zealand mate.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> New Zealand mate.



Yeah, no. We are taking back America if that means some people have to leave and some elected officials are throw in prison for life without charges, trial etc so be it. (if they will not obey their oath and obey the Constitution why should we?) I am more then O.K with that.

No one has a right to immigrate here, the "Zeroth Amendment" does not exist, we are nation of settlers not "immigrants".

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So you are mad because he will not fall on your sword with you..


No, he's mad at conmen like Molyneux and the rubes who fall for his con.

----------


## idiom

> Yeah, no. We are taking back America if that means some people have to leave and some elected officials are throw in prison for life without charges, trial etc so be it. (if they will not obey their oath and obey the Constitution why should we?) I am more then O.K with that.
> 
> No one has a right to immigrate here, the "Zeroth Amendment" does not exist, we are nation of settlers not "immigrants".


Then you might want to look at how New Zealand manages to keep things secure. We have roughly 0% spanish speakers if that tickles your need to keep your gene pool nice and clean.

----------


## Danke

> Its really hard to get here illegally, but pretty easy to do it legally. That is why we have such an heterogeneous population.


 Did you need a lot of money and or a job before you can legally immigrate to New Zealand?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> No, he's mad at conmen like Molyneux and the rubes who fall for his con.



But not people Like Johnson who supports open borders, mass immigration of leftist voters, supports gun grabbers, etc right?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Then you might want to look at how New Zealand manages to keep things secure. We have roughly 0% spanish speakers if that tickles your need to keep your gene pool nice and clean.



Well I doubt we can make America into an Island. But a Wall, deportations, and tweaking immigration laws will be just as good..

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Did you need a lot of money and or a job before you can legally immigrate to New Zealand?


Yes and that is a great requirement as it keeps out the takers.

We should have such requirements that are even tighter.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> But not people Like Johnson who supports open borders


Open borders is the right and libertarian position, so why would a libertarian be angry about that?

As for guns, his VP is soft on them, true. And, as certain Trumplings never tire of pointing out, Gary himself is soft on homosexual baked goods. 

Nonetheless, he is orders of magnitude more libertarian than Trumpllary, taking the right position on all the important issues.

...the fed, spending, regulation, wars, due process, etc.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Open borders is the right and libertarian position, so why would a libertarian be angry about that?
> 
> As for guns, his VP is soft on them, true. And, as certain Trumplings never tire of pointing out, Gary himself is soft on homosexual baked goods. 
> 
> Nonetheless, he is orders of magnitude more libertarian than Trumpllary, taking the right position on all the important issues.
> 
> ...the fed, spending, regulation, wars, due process, etc.


No, it is not the right position as it destroys liberty, but hey do not whine about being out voted and losing elections.


Good luck getting any of that when you can not get elected because of the population that has shifted via mass immigration.

Hope you like what CA is like because if we do not secure the border, deport illegals, reduce legal immigration that is where we are headed...

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

It doesn't MATTER how good you are on tax cuts, spending, entitlements, crime, trade, you name it, if you favor, either openly or de facto, endless massive Third World immigration.
Because such immigration causes demographic change that shifts the electorate heavily and permanently Left, undoing forever any gains you might deliver in your relatively brief term in office.
Immigration is EVERYTHING.

----------


## tod evans

> Immigration is EVERYTHING.


Then why do you keep pushing for government action?

Every time government acts regarding immigration it cost the taxpayer money and results in more immigrants.

If you truly wanted to curb immigration you would personally evict immigrants and the government employees who support them. 

Government does't have a problem with anything that grows government and your approach to your pet issue is a perfect case in point.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> No, it is not the right position as it destroys liberty, but hey do not whine about being out voted and losing elections.


We libertarians are already being outvoted by people like yourself who vote for social democrats like Trump. 




> Good luck getting any of that when you can not get elected because of the population that has shifted via mass immigration.


The fed, the income tax, social security, medicare, medicaid, the wagner act, the civil rights act... 

^^^massive expansions of government which occurred before mass third world immigration



^^^tell me how the government started growing in 1965?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> We libertarians are already being outvoted by people like yourself who vote for social democrats like Trump.


You really should stop calling yourself a libertarian.  You are a world government-loving globalist; not a libertarian.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> You really should stop calling yourself a libertarian.  You are a world government-loving globalist; not a libertarian.


LOL, you just posted this in another thread....

I guess I'll repost my response. 




> I'm not necessarily for world government,  but I'm open to the idea. There's a reasonable debate to be had (though  not with you obviously) over how the advantages (no more war) compare to  the disadvantages (knowledge problems due to scale, lack of inter-state  economic competition). Anyway, free trade agreements are not about  world government, and even if they mostly promote cronyism rather than  free trade, could not possibly do 1% the damage that Trump and his ilk  have been doing, from our _national_ capital, with your enthusiastic support.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> We libertarians are already being outvoted by people like yourself who vote for social democrats like Trump. 
> 
> 
> 
> The fed, the income tax, social security, medicare, medicaid, the wagner act, the civil rights act... 
> 
> ^^^massive expansions of government which occurred before mass third world immigration
> 
> 
> ...


So why make things worse?

Why pour gasoline on the fire?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> LOL, you just posted this in another thread....
> 
> I guess I'll repost my response.


The only thing you will get is a global Gulag.

----------


## tod evans

> So why make things worse?
> 
> Why pour gasoline on the fire?


Gasoline or kerosene......

Government of any magnitude makes life intolerable for those who must support it. 

Continually screaming for a government that governs 350+ million people to do your bidding makes just as much sense as screaming for a world government, *none!*

Both are too large and disconnected and your incessant blather about how you and that mouse in your pocket are going to affect either one by voting in some talking head has long since ceased being comical.

Even LE admits that elections, at this point, are akin to opening the door of a run away car and dragging your foot...

If changing drivers while barreling down the hill is going to have any effect on the outcome at the bottom of the hill it makes sense to pick a driver that'll slow the car by whatever means necessary instead of increasing its speed.

At this point, given the choices, picking the driver that'll crash soonest will let the healing begin..........You could try framing your position in that light, it'd certainly influence more people.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So why make things worse?
> 
> Why pour gasoline on the fire?


What the cited facts imply is that it wouldn't make thing worse.

....that whites are just as likely to grow government as Hispanics.

....that it doesn't matter.

....that focusing on race is a distraction from the real drivers of state growth.

----------


## undergroundrr

> ....that whites are just as likely to grow government as Hispanics.


More likely per capita worldwide. Almost 100% more likely to devise hair-brained governing schemes that result in pan-global collectivist oppression and war.

----------


## idiom

> Open borders is the right and libertarian position, so why would a libertarian be angry about that?
> 
> As for guns, his VP is soft on them, true. And, as certain Trumplings never tire of pointing out, Gary himself is soft on homosexual baked goods. 
> 
> Nonetheless, he is orders of magnitude more libertarian than Trumpllary, taking the right position on all the important issues.
> 
> ...the fed, spending, regulation, wars, due process, etc.


A) Being law abiding is a libertarian position too.
B) He isn't running for President of a minarchist utopia.

----------


## TheCount

> The only thing you will get is a global Gulag.


Aren't government limits on travel the defining feature of a gulag?


That would mean that it's actually the closed-border crowd that wants to create a gulag.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> A) Being law abiding is a libertarian position too.


No it isn't.

For instance, I see no libertarian justification whatsoever for abiding by laws that require one to snitch on "victimless criminals." And that is just one of myriad examples in which "being law abiding" would not only _not_ be "a libertarian position," but would actually be an _anti_-libertarian position.

Law-abidingness _per se_ is orthogonal to libertarianism. (And the same is true with respect to _any_ "ism" that does not assert that whatever happens to be the law must always be obeyed without exception.)




> B) He isn't running for President of a minarchist utopia.


He isn't running for President of a maxarchist utopia, either.

(See? Other people can do that, too ... )

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> A) Being law abiding is a libertarian position too.


Blind obedience to the law, whatever it is, is certainly not consistent with libertarian principles. 




> B) He isn't running for President of a minarchist utopia.


...not sure what you mean.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Aren't government limits on travel the defining feature of a gulag?
> 
> 
> That would mean that it's actually the closed-border crowd that wants to create a gulag.


And bring in leftist voters will not do even more damage?

Also Gulags had running water, there for any place that has running water is a Gulag, see, that is what you are doing.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> What the cited facts imply is that it wouldn't make thing worse.
> 
> ....that whites are just as likely to grow government as Hispanics.
> 
> ....that it doesn't matter.
> 
> ....that focusing on race is a distraction from the real drivers of state growth.



No whites support smaller government in larger numbers...


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...he-future.html

----------


## TheCount

> Also Gulags had running water, there for any place that has running water is a Gulag, see, that is what you are doing.


Yeah... that's not what defining feature means.


A gulag won't work as a gulag if people can just leave, or not go there in the first place.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> No whites support smaller government in larger numbers...


No, they say they do when polled. 

When it comes time to actually vote, ~99% of them vote for a big government candidate.

----------


## idiom

> No, they say they do when polled. 
> 
> When it comes time to actually vote, ~99% of them vote for a big government candidate.


Not here they don't. Its a feature of the populace not the system.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Not here they don't. Its a feature of the populace not the system.


I'm not sure how that relates to what I said...

My point was that there is no evidence that whites are more likely to support small government than non-whites.

----------


## idiom

> Blind obedience to the law, whatever it is, is certainly not consistent with libertarian principles. 
> 
> ...not sure what you mean.


Open immigration would have the same effect as building a wall. It would make all new immigrants legal.

The question remains whether high immigration levels are a good idea within the current system.

New Zealand has secure borders and high levels of immigration. I don't know why libertarians are so adamant about enabling illegal behaviour.

Do you want high levels of legal immigration? Or high levels of illegal immigration? If you are actually after high levels of illegal immigration then your motives are kinda suspect.

----------


## idiom

> I'm not sure what your point is.
> 
> Mine is that there is no evidence that whites are more likely to support small government than non-whites.


Everybody likes small government eventually.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Everybody likes small government eventually.




There's no reason to think the population will just naturally move towards liberalism.

The truth has no advantage in democratic politics, it's a battle of sophistry.

...determined largely by money.

...and the incentives driving that money tend naturally to be illiberal.

I'm very happy that New Zealand liberalized, but you're drawing too broad a conclusion from that one case.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> New Zealand has secure borders and high levels of immigration. I don't know why libertarians are so adamant about enabling illegal behaviour.


What are you talking about?

If immigration is unrestricted, there is by definition no such thing as illegal immigration. 

If libertarians are advocating for free immigration, they are not advocating for illegal behavior.

...they're advocating for the legalization of behavior which is currently illegal. 




> Do you want high levels of legal immigration? Or high levels of illegal immigration


I don't want high or low levels of immigration, I want free immigration. 

...which would, I say again, be legal by definition.

What exactly is your point...?

----------


## idiom

> There's no reason to think the population will just naturally move towards liberalism.
> 
> The truth has no advantage in democratic politics, it's a battle of sophistry.
> 
> ...determined largely by money.
> 
> ...and the incentives driving that money tend naturally to be illiberal.
> 
> I'm very happy that New Zealand liberalized, but you're drawing too broad a conclusion from that one case.


Nearly every country, except notably the US, is becoming more liberalised, broadly speaking. Because it works, and authoritarianism has failed miserably.

There is a giant looming hiccup in that story with the anti-globalist backlash, but it was largely the story of the last two decades.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Nearly every country, except notably the US, is becoming more liberalised, broadly speaking.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

And you people wonder why and how Pinochet came to power....

----------


## r3volution 3.0

What Pinochet Did For Chile

----------


## misterx

He seems to have followed the same progression I did. He hasn't gone insane, he's adjusted his world view according to new information. His gene wars series is great.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

@idiom 

...anxiously awaiting your response to this post.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It bothers me that supposedly rational people would actually invest the time to listen to this douche...
> 
> But whadda I know?


People do, though. They do faithfully.

----------


## tod evans

> People do, though. They do faithfully.


People watch the MSM newz too.........SMDH

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

He is seeing the light more and more day after day. 

Does it upset you guys that we are winning?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> He is seeing the light more and more day after day. 
> 
> Does it upset you guys that we are winning?


Of course, it's always upsetting when non-libertarian movements grow. 

On the bright side, I'm fairly sure that the white nationalist movement will lose most of its recent gains after the election.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Of course, it's always upsetting when non-libertarian movements grow. 
> 
> On the bright side, I'm fairly sure that the white nationalist movement will lose most of its recent gains after the election.


Well you are not a Liberty based movement when you support bring in people to vote against you.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well you are not a Liberty based movement when you support bring in people to vote against you.


You are exactly right.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Open borders is the right and libertarian position, so why would a libertarian be angry about that?


Open borders isn't libertarian.  It is however the position of the Communist-oriented world government promoters and their useful idiots.

----------


## alucard13mm

Being a nationalist protects your sovereignty and laws of the land... When you embrace open borders (which is what globalists are trying to do as well) because it is a libertarian thing to do, you are just playing into the globalist's hands. There is a reason why there is a push to "diversify" the people to make it easy to make the case that we are all one culture, tradition, blah blah blah and should be one global entity. 

It is true that we are all one people, but force diversity is kinda bad with mass migration of people. Most Chinese people are for gun control. If you import 50 million chinese people into the USA in a year... guess what? Most of those 50 million people will vote for more gun control. Maybe a few million might embrace gun culture, but most will not. Once you lose the 2nd amendment right, you will lose it forever.

Hypothetically, I think if you had a government/nation that works. You have the duty and right to protect that system. if you and your people worked hard to have a good, stable country that is prosperous... would you not want to protect it against things that may bring down the system or standard of living? I think of it kinda like a zombie apocalypse. You manage to have a successful community through hardwork, you may or may not let in some people. You kinda want to protect it against people that might want to F it up.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

He's always had positives and negatives.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Being a nationalist protects your sovereignty and laws of the land... When you embrace open borders (which is what globalists are trying to do as well) because it is a libertarian thing to do, you are just playing into the globalist's hands. There is a reason why there is a push to "diversify" the people to make it easy to make the case that we are all one culture, tradition, blah blah blah and should be one global entity. 
> 
> It is true that we are all one people, but force diversity is kinda bad with mass migration of people. Most Chinese people are for gun control. If you import 50 million chinese people into the USA in a year... guess what? Most of those 50 million people will vote for more gun control. Maybe a few million might embrace gun culture, but most will not. Once you lose the 2nd amendment right, you will lose it forever.
> 
> Hypothetically, I think if you had a government/nation that works. You have the duty and right to protect that system. if you and your people worked hard to have a good, stable country that is prosperous... would you not want to protect it against things that may bring down the system or standard of living? I think of it kinda like a zombie apocalypse. You manage to have a successful community through hardwork, you may or may not let in some people. You kinda want to protect it against people that might want to F it up.


You are using too much logic, reason, and objectivity. Some people would rather everyone be equally poor, oppressed, and miserable if it means some people are not free/"excluded".

Some people do not value Liberty and will subvert it from with, so we need to keep out those people as we have more then enough of our own, sadly some here care more about the "right" of others to come here more then they do about protecting their own rights.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Open borders isn't libertarian.  It is however the position of the Communist-oriented world government promoters and their useful idiots.


Anytime you are supporting the same things communists do its a clear sign you are wrong and need to change your stance...

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> He's always had positives and negatives.


The negatives being he smashes leftist trying to promote moronic things like open borders/mass immigration.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> The negatives being he smashes leftist trying to promote moronic things like open borders/mass immigration.


So you support open borders and mass immigration. Got it.

----------


## alucard13mm

> You are using too much logic, reason, and objectivity. Some people would rather everyone be equally poor, oppressed, and miserable if it means some people are not free/"excluded".
> 
> Some people do not value Liberty and will subvert it from with, so we need to keep out those people as we have more then enough of our own, sadly some here care more about the "right" of others to come here more then they do about protecting their own rights.


The USA and Europe cannot keep saving people but as long as people from those hell holes keep having 4-8 babies, the stream of people will be endless until USA/Europe itself collapses or becomes a hell hole itself. 

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Young Hispanic and Asian-Americans who are immigrants  or have an immigrant parent are more likely to be liberal in their views  on politics and immigration than those with families who have been in  United States longer, a new GenForward poll shows."

----------


## juleswin

> The USA and Europe cannot keep saving people but as long as people from those hell holes keep having 4-8 babies, the stream of people will be endless until USA/Europe itself collapses or becomes a hell hole itself.


Jesus Christ man, if someone breaks your legs and then gives you clutches, did he really save u? Sorry Bryan, if he answers yes to this question, I am going to call him an idiot. It is no coincidence that the waves of immigration to the Europe and America has always preceded a great intervention by the so called do gooders of the west. So please spare me with the "USA and Europe cannot keep saving people" nonsense. 




> "WASHINGTON (AP) — Young Hispanic and Asian-Americans who are immigrants  or have an immigrant parent are more likely to be liberal in their views  on politics and immigration than those with families who have been in  United States longer, a new GenForward poll


Also, I am going to warn you that this white nationalism you are supporting might come back to bite you in the ass. If I remember correctly, you and your family living in the country with the highest freedom index, in a land native to you weren't cutting it and were living in a boathouse. You probably dont know this but your family came here and most likely took advantage of some of the  many liberal policies put in place to help poor and immigrant families to get on their feet. Your white nationalist brethren will likely count that against you and use it as a reason to send your sorry a*s back to that boat house in Hong Kong.

I bet this song will be playing while you are sitting in some detention camp waiting to be deported




Btw, I am not saying you shouldn't bite the liberal hand that feeds you, but you definitely should feed the mouth that could bite you down the road.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> So you support open borders and mass immigration. Got it.


No, I do not, like a Kennedy you are a liar.





> The USA and Europe cannot keep saving people but as long as people from those hell holes keep having 4-8 babies, the stream of people will be endless until USA/Europe itself collapses or becomes a hell hole itself. 
> 
> "WASHINGTON (AP)  Young Hispanic and Asian-Americans who are immigrants  or have an immigrant parent are more likely to be liberal in their views  on politics and immigration than those with families who have been in  United States longer, a new GenForward poll shows."


No, we end mass immigration from those nations, build a wall, deport those here illegally, no more welfare/birth ciztenship for illegals. 

They idea that this is happening beyond our control is a myth......





> Jesus Christ man, if someone breaks your legs and then gives you clutches, did he really save u? Sorry Bryan, if he answers yes to this question, I am going to call him an idiot. It is no coincidence that the waves of immigration to the Europe and America has always preceded a great intervention by the so called do gooders of the west. So please spare me with the "USA and Europe cannot keep saving people" nonsense.


Who would have thought when you import people said people in America lobby for America to be used as a weapon/tool for their own needs,wants, desires




> Also, I am going to warn you that this white nationalism you are supporting might come back to bite you in the ass. If I remember correctly, you and your family living in the country with the highest freedom index, in a land native to you weren't cutting it and were living in a boathouse. You probably dont know this but your family came here and most likely took advantage of some of the  many liberal policies put in place to help poor and immigrant families to get on their feet. Your white nationalist brethren will likely count that against you and use it as a reason to send your sorry a*s back to that boat house in Hong Kong.


Ah, when Liberty minded Whites standing up for their nations, cultures, rights, self interests is some how a bad thing but when everyone else does it is not.

No, we like him, we would send White Leftists to Brazil, South Africa, or Mexico before we send him back.




> I bet this song will be playing while you are sitting in some detention camp waiting to be deported
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, I am not saying you shouldn't bite the liberal hand that feeds you, but you definitely should feed the mouth that could bite you down the road.


He is picking the winning side, and not backing the commie scum that made his parents leave in the damn first place...

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> No, I do not, like a Kennedy you are a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we end mass immigration from those nations, build a wall, deport those here illegally, no more welfare/birth ciztenship for illegals. 
> 
> They idea that this is happening beyond our control is a myth......
> 
> ...


If you dont want to be misunderstood learn to construct your sentences better. Or stop trolling.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If you dont want to be misunderstood learn to construct your sentences better. Or stop trolling.


I find him easy to understand.

----------


## juleswin

> Who would have thought when you import people said people in America lobby ..................................................  .....................................


As someone who makes a lot of typos, I would give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to rewrite that part cos I am not sure what you are trying to say.






> Ah, when Liberty minded Whites standing up for their nations, cultures, rights, self interests is some how a bad thing but when everyone else does it is not.
> 
> No, we like him, we would send White Leftists to Brazil, South Africa, or Mexico before we send him back.
> 
> He is picking the winning side, and not backing the commie scum that made his parents leave in the damn first place...


I am actually not saying it is a bad thing for white people to stand up for their nation, culture, families etc I am just cautioning the young man that he could find himself on the outside looking in if he is not too careful. The fight white nationalists have been fighting has been a long and difficult one that when they finally achieve their goal, they are going to clean house. The poster in question to put it simply is an economic refugee to this country and when the revolution ends, he could easily find himself on a boat back to Honk Kong, if only to prevent the possibility of race mixing in the future. I am sure you know the mantra Asia for Asians, Europe for Europeans, Africa for Africans, the US for the white Europeans and so for forth

If I were him, I would be rooting for the side that stands for individual freedom, a side which doesn't put way too much emphasis on race. That way, he would have more guarantee to enjoy the victory with the victors if and when it happens. 

Lastly, Hong Kong ranks #1 in freedom index, there are more commies here than in Honk Kong. If running from commies is what they were doing, they would have packed up and left by now.

----------


## alucard13mm

> Also, I am going to warn you that this white nationalism you are supporting might come back to bite you in the ass. If I remember correctly, you and your family living in the country with the highest freedom index, in a land native to you weren't cutting it and were living in a boathouse. You probably dont know this but your family came here and most likely took advantage of some of the  many liberal policies put in place to help poor and immigrant families to get on their feet. Your white nationalist brethren will likely count that against you and use it as a reason to send your sorry a*s back to that boat house in Hong Kong.
> 
> I bet this song will be playing while you are sitting in some detention camp waiting to be deported


The difference between me and them is the fact that I am not trying to impose my chinese culture onto the American people and I am not saying horrible things about the nation that took my people in. I am not flying the Chinese flag on my front yard nor do I cheer for the Chinese team. 

White Brethren... Everyone is migrating to white countries and white neighborhoods. And when that neighborhood starts to shift demographics, the standard of living goes down. Most of you guys here would prefer not to live in urban cities (which are the most diverse places) and prefer to live in some rural area or small town that is most likely predominantly white. I recognize that all teh best places to live are predominantly "white" and christian/secular. 

I think they have good reason to detain Chinese or Chinese-Americans if the poo hits the fan. I have been to those chinese association meetings in America, more specifically Wang family chinese association where everyone with the name Wang can come to this banquet and meet other people with the last name Wang. They did a lot of poo talking of America and how America picks on China. I would not be surprised if some of them would work for the Chinese and against the USA in times of war.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> If you dont want to be misunderstood learn to construct your sentences better. Or stop trolling.


If you want to make a point, stop lying, and stop changing the subject.

Now fly into the ocean.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I find him easy to understand.


People always use the grammar card to change the subject, as if the use of a comma or misspelling of a word changes facts.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> As someone who makes a lot of typos, I would give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to rewrite that part cos I am not sure what you are trying to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am actually not saying it is a bad thing for white people to stand up for their nation, culture, families etc I am just cautioning the young man that he could find himself on the outside looking in if he is not too careful. The fight white nationalists have been fighting has been a long and difficult one that when they finally achieve their goal, they are going to clean house. The poster in question to put it simply is an economic refugee to this country and when the revolution ends, he could easily find himself on a boat back to Honk Kong, if only to prevent the possibility of race mixing in the future. I am sure you know the mantra Asia for Asians, Europe for Europeans, Africa for Africans, the US for the white Europeans and so for forth
> 
> If I were him, I would be rooting for the side that stands for individual freedom, a side which doesn't put way too much emphasis on race. That way, he would have more guarantee to enjoy the victory with the victors if and when it happens. 
> ...


And he is not already? And will be more so if we do not secure the border, limit immigration, deport the hordes, etc?

Which sides supports Liberty/Freedom? It is surely not the Open border, multicultural, diversity, Marxist zealots.

Hong Kong, the land of chew gum and you get caned is a freer then America....Yeah.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> If you want to make a point, stop lying, and stop changing the subject.
> 
> Now fly into the ocean.


Cute.

----------


## Origanalist

> And he is not already? And will be more so if we do not secure the border, limit immigration, deport the hordes, etc?
> 
> Which sides supports Liberty/Freedom? It is surely not the Open border, multicultural, diversity, Marxist zealots.
> 
> Hong Kong, the land of chew gum and you get caned is a freer then America....Yeah.


Yes, it is.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Cute.


Sorry I can not hear you over ocean water filling your lungs because you crashed your plane, because you thought for what ever reason because you are JFK the 3rd the laws of flight and psychics do not apply to you.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Yes, it is.
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking


Great move it to.

----------


## Origanalist

We have the biggest per capita prison population of any major country in the world. We even beat North Korea.

----------


## Origanalist

> Great move it to.


$#@! you.

----------


## Danke

> We have the biggest per capita prison population of any major country in the world. We even beat North Korea.


The Secret US Prisons Youve Never Heard of Before | Will Potter | TED Talks

Posted on September 9, 2016by David Robinson
Investigative journalist Will Potter is the only reporter who has been inside a Communications Management Unit, or CMU, within a US prison. These units were opened secretly, and they radically alter how prisoners are treated  even preventing them from hugging their children.

Potter, a TED Fellow, shows us who is imprisoned here, and how the government is trying to keep them hidden. The message was clear, he says. Dont talk about this place. 

What people in power do when no-one is watching!



Francis Schaeffer Cox is a libertarian political prisoner who was sentenced to 26 years. He is being held in USP Marion, IL with an expected parole date of 10/03/33.

h
Francis Schaeffer Cox is being held in the CMU in the Marion facility. He is decidedly a POLITICAL PRISONER suffering at the whim of the crime syndicate called our federal government.

That crime syndicate is a mostly foreign owned, for profit corporation masquerading as our government.  Schaeffer spoke out about those crimes while he was in Montana on December 9th 2009.  If you want the real story from the source, you can watch his inspiring Montana speech here.








If you dont believe what I said about our so called federal government being a crime syndicate you need to read the articles on this website
by Judge Anna Von Reitz from Big Lake Alaska.

Or you can go to her website at annavonreitz.com

----------


## Origanalist

> If you don’t believe what I said about our so called “federal government” being a crime syndicate you need to read the articles on this website
> by Judge Anna Von Reitz from Big Lake Alaska.
> 
> Or you can go to her website at annavonreitz.com


I already knew it was but deeply appreciate the links. A lot there to study.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Danke again.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> $#@! you.


....No thank you.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> We have the biggest per capita prison population of any major country in the world. We even beat North Korea.


It has nothing to do with the endless laws that are created every day, right?

It has nothing to do with the need to created a police state thanks to imported the lowest IQed, most violent people on Earth into our nation, right?

----------


## Origanalist

> It has nothing to do with the endless laws that are created every day, right?
> 
> It has nothing to do with the need to created a police state thanks to imported the lowest IQed, most violent people on Earth into our nation, right?


I simply don't see how you make the jump from one to the other. You started out on the obvious conclusion and then went sideways.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Sorry I can hear you over ocean water filling your lungs because you crashed your plane, because you thought for what ever reason because you are JFK the 3rd the laws of flight and psychics do not apply to you.


You're apologizing for being able to hear me...I appreciate it bro.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> You're apologizing for being able to hear me...I appreciate it bro.


What did JFK Jr say as we was drowning?

"Help me!".

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> What did JFK Jr say as we was drowning?
> 
> "Help me!".


Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

----------


## Origanalist

> ....No thank you.


Oh c'mon baby, you know you want it.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I wonder, would you be using the same language if white people were outbreeding the world, spilling into Africa and gradually displacing the native black population? This is what was happening to a certain extent during colonialism, which is now widely condemned as a genocidal racist monstrosity. 
> 
> If it's genocide when it happens to one group, why isn't it genocide when it happens to another?
> 
> 
> _



"Outbreeding", lol....birth rates are tied to infant mortality rates in humans, and poorer countries therefore have 5-6 kids per family...but only 2 on average survive to reproduce (same for richer countries). The difference is the richer countries only need to have about 2 kids on average to reach that 2 kids reproducing. Lower child mortality.

This is hard wired in mammals...if you shoot a lot of local coyotes, for example, the females go into heat earlier and have larger litters. Humans are no different. It's not races outbreeding...it's out-birthing. We hit global peak child a long time ago, hence the overpopulation thing is a myth. All countries will be having 2 kids and 2 survive to reproduce, or less, by 2040-2050. Then population worldwide declines slowly. Watch this video:

----------


## ProIndividual

> I'm glad that libertarians have come to the point where we're answering complicated sociological questions with comedians. You guys have more in common with the progs than you think...


Ad hominem/guilt by association. Now address Carlin's underlying points. Thanks.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> "Outbreeding", lol....birth rates are tied to infant mortality rates in humans, and poorer countries therefore have 5-6 kids per family...but only 2 on average survive to reproduce (same for richer countries). The difference is the richer countries only need to have about 2 kids on average to reach that 2 kids reproducing. Lower child mortality.


 Umm, this is completely not the case currently.  Let me first state the obvious:

• Birth rates in humans are tied to.... *how many human females give birth*.  That is the _only_ thing it's tied to.  It's what the term means!

OK, now that we have that cleared up, is it true what you say: are all the kids in poor countries just dying off, and the attrition means the surviving-children rate is the same as the rich countries, and their populations are staying stable?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!



AAahhhh ha ha ha.  Ho ho ho ho ho.

No, the population growth rate varies a *lot* in different countries.

Now we all love Professor Rosling [mostly for the lovely animated charts he uses in his "the world is getting richer and poverty will be cured soon (except in Africa)" video].  So let's just use an example straight from the talk you posted: in Bangladesh in just the last few decades, population has gone from 50 million to _150 million_ (!!!).

Not by having two surviving kids each it didn't!!!!!!




> This is hard wired in mammals...if you shoot a lot of local coyotes, for example, the females go into heat earlier and have larger litters. Humans are no different.


 That is true for coyotes.  It is not true for rabbits (or if it is, the change is extremely minor and thus undetectable by any test we could devise).  Rabbits have a more r-selected reproduction strategy.  They are shooting to have maximum offspring in minimum time, _all_ the time.  Always, always.

Humans can change between strategies.  Really, humans can do whatever we jolly well want because we have big brains and free will.  But some people will choose an r strategy, and others a K strategy.  This will be largely determined by biology, if there is no conscious awareness of the phenomenon (and there mostly isn't).  Some people will just reproduce and reproduce until they reach the brink of starvation.  Starvation is the only factor that ever will put a limit on their increase.  _All_ human populations would probably be naturally inclined to do this, actually, in the absence of powerful cultural technologies throwing a big monkey wrench into nature's gears.

OK, this is going to get too long if I try to explain everything.  Bottom line:

• Some populations are growing much faster than others.  *Fact.*

• Things are not as simple nor as deterministic as you say (All the growth is coming to an end.   "All countries will be having 2 kids and 2 survive to reproduce, or less, by 2040-2050. Then population worldwide declines slowly.")

What determines population growth or shrinkage?  *Human Action.*  Human Choices.  Individual judgment calls and life decisions.  Are you really so sure you know exactly what all humans are going to be choosing?  _Tomorrow_ much less thirty years from now?

Anyway, what is going on right now -- *by everyone's admission and as the clear facts clearly show!* -- is that blacks and asians in various third world peasant countries in Africa and Asia are _greatly_ out-reproducing the Caucasians in Europe and its outposts.  _Even if_ everything in the future turns out exactly as Rosling prophesies, that means that in 2050 when the world human population finally levels off, it will be a population with billions and billions more negroid and asiatic humans and _not_ billions more -  actually _fewer_!  In absolute numbers! -- white caucasoid humans.

That is just the *fact*.

----------


## Ender

> Ad hominem/guilt by association. Now address Carlin's underlying points. Thanks.


Carlin was more Right On than any politicians/sociologists I can think of.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Ad hominem/guilt by association. Now address Carlin's underlying points. Thanks.


I did that. Read the rest of the exchange.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I'm glad that libertarians have come to the point where we're answering complicated sociological questions with comedians. You guys have more in common with the progs than you think...


Entryism by the life is a bitch

----------

