IDEOLOGY AND ETHICS SURVEY
||Does ethnic solidarity matter in the defense of liberty?
||A strong environmental viewpoint:
A strong genetic.viewpoint:
|"Liberty" is an idea that mainly re-
|"Liberty" has strong sociological roots
||requires libertarian mass education
based upon innate needs for autonomy
|Atomizing people with race mixing
In order to effectively defend liberty from
||supports individualism and liberty
tyranny, close knit ethnic groups are required
|Reason is an adequate tool for per-
Ethnic pride often needed for successful
||suading elites to grant others liberty
fight against selfish, alien elitist enemies
Sample argument (leftist libertarian): "Liberty" originally meant the ability of individuals to act freely without interference from the state. Once educated, the "reasonable man" should clearly understand that government is ultimately about politics, force, and bureaucracy. There are very few things government can do well compared to the private sector. Once the "reasonable man" understands the government's encroachments on American liberties over the last 150 years, he should see the light and act accordingly. In regard to racial issues, we think that we can synthetically create "individualism" through race-mixing, which tends to atomize people, and also by condoning alternative lifestyles, to include drug culture and gay marriage. Our neo-con friends inform us that racial and ethnic loyalty constitutes a form of "collectivism," whereby a sense of group racial loyalty undermines the individualists' ability to do his own thing. Lastly, we can approach members of America's leadership elite and trust that they will become acting libertarians if only we can demonstrate the logic of our cause. The problem with people like David Rockefeller and Dr. Henry Kissinger must be that real libertarians have simply not made a really strenuous effort to educate them. Maybe people like spendthrift former Fed Chairman Dr. Alan Greenspan need remedial instruction. Somehow having been in the inner circle of super anarcho-libertarian Ayn Rand and other Jewish co-tribalists did not quite do the trick for this man. Perhaps we just have to sell libertarianism that much harder and be a lot more patient with these people and just really keep the faith.
|. . .
Sample argument (rightist libertarian): America was founded by Nordic and Celtic peoples who have always lived in relatively decentralized, middle class, homestead-oriented societies going back to prehistoric times. This innate tendency was sculptured in their gene pools by long evolutionary histories spanning hundreds of thousands of years in dispersed, frost zone environments. The U.S. Declaration of Independence was merely a symptom of older tendencies predating the early republican experiences of ancient Greece and Rome. Maintaining ethno-racial cohesion is absolutely vital, because when tyrants come after rebels, the only people rebels can really trust to shelter and finance them and not snitch are people related by blood and culture. A cardinal axiom of Right Wing 101 is that the closer people are related by blood and culture, the more likely they are to act as altruists and mutualists towards each other, and conversely the more distant they are, the more likely they are to turn on each other as predators or parasites. The fight for liberty involves more than just academic theory. Far more important, just like the Scottish hero William Wallace dramatized in the movie Braveheart, one must hear the bagpipe music and feel the call of the blood to adequately motivate the group effort required for the triumph of their freedom against power elites that knowingly exploit the people. Libertarian talk is informative, but sometimes this talk can be very cheap. Sometimes libertarian philosophy is nothing more than the sheep's clothing worn by grinning, low cunning predators. It takes a lot more to motivate real results in the fight for freedom than academic theory.
(Last updated 7 Dec 2007 by William B. Fox)
Return to question 13
Addressing the strong environmental view:
In regard to the bullet point statement: "Atomizing people with race mixing supports individualism and liberty." This is an idea that most Americans have absorbed on a subliminal level from many different sources. Affirmative action programs in colleges that admit under-qualified minorities at the expense of more qualified white applicants such as Allan Bakke are a prime historical example. They trumpet that "diversity is strength" while denying meritocracy. They imply that somehow we require racial diversity to achieve intellectual diversity.
Like so many assertions involving social phenomenon, it is often not a question of black vs. white or "right" or "wrong," but rather whether or not a statement reflects a general rule as opposed to an exception to the general rule.
There is some truth in the concept that atomizing people and encouraging them to seek various forms of individual expression can expand freedom in some areas. For example, since the 1960's America's Jewish supremacist-controlled national media has promoted various forms of moral permissiveness and relativism that encourages individuals to expand their publicly expressed personal freedom in such areas as obscenity, sexual perversion, drug use, social race-mixing, and inter-racial marriage.
It is certainly true that if a white woman wants to smoke dope and hold hands with a black man and carry a mulatto baby in public, she has much more freedom to do this across America today than sixty years ago. And this is only one of many "contributions" to America promoted by Jews and other modern liberals.
In contrast, the general rule is that when a dissident needs to defend individual liberty against government encroachment, his degree of racial and ethnic cohesion with others is extremely important. This is because in the real world, it is typically a tyrannical government that has the most powerful armaments and the most money. The dissident may have the moral high ground, but that does not help very much if he is ostracized by the system, loses his job, and cannot find work. It may get even worse if he is starved or beaten into submission by brute force, or if government agents can easily buy off informants to turn him in.
To survive and to be able to continue effectively organizing opposition to tyranny, the freedom fighter needs to be sheltered by a dissident community that cannot be bought off or bullied by the evil government at any price. Over the long span of history, we see that the most effective dissidents belong to communities that are united by such tribal fundamentals as race, ethnicity, and religion.
A good example is the Irish independence struggle led by Michael Collins. Do you think the Irish War of Independence (1919-1921) was won by expanding the bounds of individual permissiveness and expression, such as by expanding the right to do hallucinogenic drugs, permit same sex fondling in public, and all the other "do your own thing" freedoms promoted by Jewish controlled media in America since the 1960's "counter culture" revolution?
No, I don't think so. The key was the Irish had developed a strong sense of group solidarity with a strongly shared cultural, ethnic, and religious identity. They shared a very long historical memory and a strong "us vs. them" mentality. This motivated spies working among the British to literally risk their necks to keep Michael Collins informed in advance of enemy moves. This inspired Irish descendants in America to supply resistance forces with money, arms and ammunition. This also inspired young Irish lads to risk their necks using various innovative guerilla warfare tactics in the countryside. Winning the most important political freedom of all meant group cooperation and individual sacrifice rather than simply expanding the envelop of hedonistic or permissive individual indulgence.
On a broader social level, we can also see how homogeneous white societies in the 19th century such as Sweden, the Netherlands, and Scotland experienced impressive gains ranging from scientific discovery to steady economic development. They enjoyed increased protections for the political rights among their own people. They did all of this without the alleged blessings of "multi-racialism" and "multiculturalism." This was also true of various American states in early 19th century America such as Illinois and Oregon that consciously banned the immigration of blacks up until the period of collective leftist insanity in America that followed the abortive War of Southern Independence (1861-1865).
In contrast, countries such as the former Rhodesia and South Africa, where whites have given up their right of white racial self-determination, have resulted in mass killings and expulsions of whites and general social disaster. Corruption has skyrocketed. Their economies have devolved into basket cases. The Negro leadership has imposed savagely repressive Marxist-socialist dictatorships. This has been a pattern everywhere that whites have given up white rule in favor of black rule. Proponents of "diversity" can now witness how major portions of Detroit and Washington, D.C. look like Haiti. Los Angeles and other major portions of the American Southwest are now turning into distressed replicas of Mexico.
Increasing racial diversity in our colleges has correlated with the rise of oppressive political correctness speech codes that have in actuality decreased real intellectual diversity. This trend has also coincided with a severe dumbing down of our educational achievement level, as reflected by a three decade long pattern of deteriorating SAT scores.
Unfortunately neither the controlled national media nor certain "controlled opposition" right wing groups will allow reality to get in their way. In that extremely artificial, Jewish supremacist-dominated world which we call Hollywood, we often see nonwhites portrayed on screen as wise and noble heroes who step forth to solve a major problems that somehow cannot be solved by inadequate, bigoted white people. An early 1960's example of this anti-white propaganda was the movie In the Heat of the Night where it took a noble black detective to solve a case despite the meddling of a stereotyped redneck Southern white sheriff.
Unfortunately the enemies of any form of white racial and ethnic integrity have done a masterful job of manipulating the English language to confuse Americans on this issue. As a prime example, various writers for the John Birch society and certain anarcho-libertarians have blasted any form of white racial consciousness as "collectivism."
Is white racial consciousness a form of "collectivism?"
In the late 1990's, while attending a gun show, I got into a conversation with an exhibitor about how out of control immigration will ultimately force whites to band together to protect their own cultural and genetic interests. Immediately upon making this point, the exhibitor got really agitated and suddenly blurted out, "Are you a collectivist?"
That was bad enough, but it got even worse when I started to notice the false notion that "racism is collectivism" rearing its ugly head in John Birch Society literature.
It got even worse still when I saw a respected libertarian leader such as Dr. Ron Paul make this error in his April 18, 2007 article "Government and Racism." He stated, "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mind set that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups."
I admire Dr. Paul for his staunch defense of the Constitution and towering integrity relative to his Congressional peers. In fact, I think he stands head and shoulders above opposing candidates for the coming Presidential election. However on this particular issue I think that he is completely out in left field.
The important biological factor
When we try to compare "collectivism" with white racial nationalism, we are mixing many conceptual apples and oranges. "Collectivism" is an abstract political-legal concept. In contrast, white racial nationalism follows a separate underlying biological logic that might come out of a sociobiology text book.
Conventional political arguments that address the concept of "collectivism" usually deal with caretakership, property ownership, and economic incentivization issues. This political theory is often built in a very linear manner, much like a mason trying to fit together building blocks. .
In contrast, racial issues typically focus upon biological attraction vs repulsion phenomena. Instead of acting like building blocks that logically fit together, biological phenomenon often act like a coiled spring. As a prime example, once the Communist regime in the former Yugoslavia collapsed, the instinctive racism that lay coiled up within its population sprang forth into bloody ethnic warfare.
It is worth mentioning the concept explained by Dr. Norman Hall in his article "Zoological Subspecies In Man" that racism is instinctive and found across virtually all mammalian species. Please note also the concept of the Evolutionary Breeding Unit developed by Sir Arthur Keith that views racism as adaptive because it permits groups with favorable mutations to preserve their genetic advantage. Lastly, please be aware of the concept explained by Tom Chittum in Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America that as a dominant ethnic group slips below roughly 75% of the total population of a country, the risks of civil war or fissioning apart begin to climb dramatically. I discuss these concepts and the pros and cons of racial nationalism on a biological level in greater detail in my environmental vs. genetics article.
Given Dr. Paul's education as a medical doctor, my guess is that any intelligent white racial nationalist could help him bring him around. Perhaps his ghost writing staff has been infiltrated by Birchers and lacks someone who really understands the science behind white racial nationalism. Therefore, the biological dimension behind this issue somehow slipped by him.
The "collectivism" issue addressed from a political-legal perspective
I think that the readers should also be aware that even when we ignore the biological dimension, and deal with the "collectivist" issue purely on the grounds of conventional legal and political terminology, even here we can argue that white racialism is not a form of collectivism. In fact, as I will demonstrate in my following discussion, the real collectivists are not white racists, but rather the anti-white racists.
First, let us define "collectivism."
In the mid-20th century, the term "collectivism" was typically used by Communists to describe programs where individuals would give up their individual properties rights and work together with shared property. The classic case involved "collective farms" in the old Soviet Union where farmers were only allowed a small plot for their own private cultivation, but otherwise had to work state-owned farm land with state-owned equipment, and receive the proceeds of their labor after it had been filtered through a state bureaucracy. As a consequence of "collectivization," Russian farming became extremely inefficient as farming practices became mired in bureaucratic central planning. State-rewarded farmers lost their personal incentive to innovate, adapt, and personally reinvest in superior farming practices.
In actual communist practice, "collectivization" meant that individuals effectively gave up their property rights and political freedom to the government. Under government control, everything is theoretically shared by everyone who falls underneath the government, therefore everyone's political rights are theoretically pooled together or "collectivized." In reality, the people at the top of the communist governments tend to act like plantation owners. Directly beneath them is a large government bureaucracy which is analogous to the overseers and trustees of a plantation. Underneath them, are the common citizens who become analogous to plantation workers. The boss man at the top of the government ultimately decides when and where his "boys" out in the field are going to work, and how much they get to keep from their labor.
In contrast, a desire to maintain the integrity of ones race or ethnic group does not necessarily imply that anyone has to give up his individual property rights or his political freedom. There have been many historic periods in which highly racially homogeneous white countries in such places as 19th century eastern North America, Iceland, Switzerland, and most other northern European countries in the pre-World War II era enjoyed high levels of personal freedom and minimal government intervention while maintaining their white racial and cultural integrity.
In fact, maintaining white racial and ethnic solidarity helps to preserve individual freedom, because it means preserving the right to live in a white community consisting of people with a similar instinctive and cultural disposition towards liberty. They intuitively understand each other better, and are in a better position to support each other's freedom.
White solidarity also implies having fellow whites in the strategic bases of society such as government, media, military, and banking who have such a heartfelt sentiment for the welfare of fellow whites of all socioeconomic strata that they will peruse policies that will protect their own people from various forms of alien invasion and takeover, ranging from covert Jewish supremacist infiltration (such as the Jewish takeover of America's central bank in 1913), to overt military attack (such as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor).
Maintaining white racial solidarity and integrity is absolutely essential for long term economic prosperity. This is for many reasons that I will outline below.
Whites by temperament are more adapted than most other racial groups to laissez faire business conditions that encourage innovation. They have greater chivalrous instincts to promote sportsmanlike, symbiotic business competition. They also tend to be more technologically adapted.
Long term economic success means disciplined reinvestment in advanced automation and technology rather than outsourcing to cheap labor around the world to make a quick profit. I explain this in greater detail in my "Automation Economics 101" discussion in part four of my "I, Robot Entrepreneur" series. Quite often the investment horizons for new business development involving advanced automation go out five to ten years. The advantages of investing in advanced automation compared to outsourcing to cheap labor are not always obvious; hence the need for long term vision. Hence the need for patriotic loyalty towards the cause of advancing the industrial infrastructure of ones own country and providing better jobs for ones own people.
Only very rarely in America today do we see our misguided and degenerate industrial leaders voice the kind of pride and patriotism once openly expressed by captains of industry of 19th and early 20th centuries such as Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and Andrew Carnegie. Henry Ford consciously sought to build more industrial infrastructure in America while voluntarily raising the wages of American workers well above industry standards.
Long term success also means long term reinvestment on a cultural and genetic level. Workers have to make decent incomes to support families and send their children to good schools. People have to feel a strong incentive to study, work hard, and accumulate savings in order to master new technologies and fund new domestic infrastructure..
Throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries, America saw a steady stream of innovation come out of the garages of white middle class people. The tinker shops of white middle class people was the legendary birth place of great companies such as the Ford Motor Company, Hewlett Packard, and Apple Company. However, today there is a notorious absence of such things coming out of the garages of Negroes, Mexicans, and other nonwhites, even after they get artificially boosted into middle class income levels by affirmative action programs and government pork barrel jobs. They are now literally replacing America's shrinking white middle class by the tens of millions and increasing crime rates and welfare costs to boot.
Maintaining economic progress has never been easy. Most races around the world have children at a much faster rate than they are able to increase productivity and wealth. In addition, they tend to be vastly more corrupt that European-descended countries. The leaders of Third World societies are much more likely to arbitrarily run roughshod over private property rights and confiscate wealth on whim, thereby inhibiting rational entrepreneurial calculation by businessmen. All these factors are important reasons why so many Third World countries remain mired in poverty despite massive infusions of foreign aid.
In contrast, racial groups that have evolved in the northern, frost-zone areas of the planet, ranging from Japan to the countries of northern Europe, are unique in their historical track record for being able to create wealth, productivity, and scientific progress at a faster rate than their population growth. They are also much more respectful of private property rights and human rights in general. Because of their higher standard of living, their citizens have more latitude to focus upon practicing enlightened pro-civil liberties policies, unlike poverty-stricken Third World peoples who may need to spend most of their lives on a continuous treadmill just to stay alive.
Racially homogeneous societies ranging from Japan to Iceland have the capability to maintain the social cohesion and self-discipline necessary to advance the frontiers of automation and technology. In contrast, the economies of majority nonwhite societies tend to be heavily oriented towards goods and services that involve short term investment time horizons. Third world economic activities generally show vastly less intellectual sophistication and a greater urge towards immediate gratification. Such societies are typically incapable of maintaining advanced industrial leadership.
Maintaining the right to voluntarily participate in various forms of group property rights is a totally different from "collectivism"
It is possible to reconcile white racial nationalism with anarcho-libertarian theory by simply treating white racial and cultural integrity as a group property right. (When one talks to libertarians, one needs to rephrase everything in the context of "property rights," since most libertarians believe that property rights are the corner stone of individual liberty.) Some social scientists have also developed the term "ethnic genetic interests" to mean essentially the same thing as "group property rights."
In a free enterprise system that respects individual property rights, various forms of group property rights are both very common and very necessary to accomplish certain tasks. For example, a business corporation reflects the group property rights of its stockholders. Each business asset of one of the S&P 500 companies is owned by all the shareholders in their entirety. Each asset such as a computer monitor or loading dock in not specifically assigned as the property of each specific shareholder. As another example, a real estate condominium reflects the group property rights of condominium owners. Usually no one assigns specific ownership of specific floor tiles in the swimming pool, lobby, or jacuzzi to specific condominium owners.
It is important to note that all of these examples involve examples where individuals voluntarily chose how they wish to pool their interests with others, and on what scale. Usually they measure out their pooling of interests in a way that still has economic viability, such as in the creation of a business corporation.
A similar analogy applies to whites who wish to protect their group property right of preserving their ethnic genetic interests. For example, a person who belongs to various ethnic societies can chose on what level he wishes to protect his ethnic genetic interests, and on what level. He can participate on many different levels simultaneously, similar to the way someone can have stock ownership in small companies as well as large corporations at the same time. He may wish to participate in a club devoted to pursuing a specific cultural mission, while at the same time belonging to another club that maintains a group of people descended from a specific European nationality.
It is actually very easy to reconcile anarcho-libertarian theory with white racial nationalism, so long as we can get libertarians to acknowledge the need for the defense and reinvestment in long term white ethnic genetic interests (as a group property right) as well
as personal private property interests.
All of this is very different from communist-style "collectivization," where individuals are typically forced to surrender most of their land and other property under the threat of revolutionary violence to a Red dictator. The state has the power to tell everyone when and were they will work and how much they get to keep from the rewards of their labor. Under communist "collectivization," the pooling of ownership is so broad and abstract that it becomes meaningless. Property rights get diluted into oblivion. In actual communist practice, economic sectors are typically run by large government bureaucracies that are typically geared towards serving ideological and bureaucratic political goals rather than having any real economic viability.
In fact, the John Birch Society has it completely backwards. The real "collectivization" taking place in American today involves anti-white racism, not white racism itself. As a result of government-mandated forced racial integration, whites have increasingly lost their ability to resist government tyranny. It is much harder to form stalwart political coalitions when forcefully mixed with aliens than when one can appeal to ones own people. Furthermore, as globalist business leaders take jobs that were originally held by whites and give them away to nonwhite countries, the gap between rich and poor has steadily grown and the white middle class has steadily diminished.
As whites are becoming increasingly marginalized and impoverished before their all-intrusive centralized government, and as they get increasingly dispossessed by nonwhites both at home and around the world, they are increasingly showing all the symptoms of forced collectivization under a Communist system.
Hence, it bears repeating that anti-white racism is the real "collectivism."
Government growth as a force for "collectivization"
The concept that we can reform government and Jewish supremacist leaders from within by simple appeals to reason is naive, to say the least. This becomes particularly clear when we survey what an out of control monster the federal government has become. Worse yet, it becomes even more evident when we see how it has essentially become just one big shark feeding pond for psychopaths who tend to rise to the top of our corrupt system.
The fact that the scale of government has grown from 5% to over 50% of the economy over the last 150 years reflects a form of increased "collectivization," to the extent that where ever the government expands, the private sector gets squeezed out. Despite all this, most Americans have been brainwashed by their controlled media to worship government spending and government intervention as some kind of economic savior.
In his book How Capitalism Saved America, Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo talks about how Americans have been brainwashed to believe that only government (shared property) can do certain things well such as build roads, run schools, and perform major public works. In fact, in the 19th century all these things were routinely done by the private sector. And they were done much better. According to Dr. DiLorenzo, the government was so bad at road building that right up until the great change in American ideology (for the worse) that was created by the Civil War era, most state legislatures banned government involvement in this area.
Americans have not only been brainwashed to worship big government, but also big corporations that have turned into big bureaucratic counterparts to government. Quite often crony capitalist leaders of America's largest corporations have a very cozy, incestuous relationship with government officials, who are the source of innumerable tax breaks, subsidies, and other special privileges. In The New Industrial State, John Kenneth Galbraith argued that many large corporations in America had become so bureaucratized that the modus operandi of their executives was really not a whole lot different from that of their Soviet counterparts. American Values Decline describes how management compensation has also frequently become severely decoupled from actual corporate performance and shareholder interests, reminiscent of the arrogance of Soviet bureaucrats towards Russian consumers.
Pro-big government brainwashing has also convinced most Americans that government spending in the name of "democracy" must always be a good thing. In Democracy: The God That Failed, Dr. Hans Herman Hoppe argues that Americans should instead look underneath the hood at how their politicians are really being incentivized. They might be in for some unpleasant surprises.
Quite often in a "social democracy," public officials feel a perverse incentive to recklessly spend public money on social programs in order to make a name for themselves while serving limited terms. Since they will only be in office for a limited time, they try to plunder it as much as possible while they can keep their hands in the cookie jar. They could care less about the debts they rack up that will become someone else's problem after they leave office. They lack a long term sense of caretakership towards society and behave very selfishly. They might even feel far less of a sense of long term caretakership for their society than members of a monarchy, oligarchy, or aristocracy who operate a privately owned government.
Why is the John Birch Society so far off base on the "racism is collectivism" issue?
Having explained the enormous philosophical difference between "collectivism" and "racial nationalism," the reader might wonder how a group such as the John Birch Society could be so far off the mark.
I would suggest to the reader that his worst fears are correct.
There is strong evidence that the John Birch society and many anarcho libertarian organizations have served as "controlled opposition" for America's Jewish supremacist-dominated social order.
Chapter Twenty-Two of Michael Collins Piper's work The Judas Goats describes how the John Birch Society has served as controlled opposition from inception. Among other things, its founder Jack Welch got started when one of the Rockefellers bought out his candy business for millions of dollars above the real market price. The favor done to Jack Welch came at an ominous political price. The Rockefellers have been joined at the hip with Jewish supremacists ever since John D. served as a front man for Rothschild interests in America.
Not surprisingly, JBS has been adamant since its inception about condemning anyone who was critical of Jewish supremacists as being "neutralizers." Such individuals tended to get expelled. One example is the late Dr. Revilo Oliver, who was one of the original organizers of the John Birch Society.
The hypocrisy of the John Birch Society reeks to high heaven when it condemns white racial nationalism as "collectivism," yet never not once does it ever dare to condemn Jewish racism in Israel as being "collectivist."
Mind you, Jewish racism in Palestine encompasses one of the most vicious forms of racism ever practiced in the history of humanity. It involves institutionalized use of torture, assassination, naked land grabs, and outright genocide. More ironic still, Israel generally forbids private land ownership among much of its territory for Jews and runs a massive social welfare state. It maintained very warm relations with the Soviets during much of the Cold War. This included handing over the secrets stolen by super traitor Jonathan Pollard. Furthermore, in the early 20th century Israel practiced collective farming on its kibbutzim. Many of the kibbutzim, incidentally, were started by the same types of Jewish communists that grabbed Russia by the throat during the Bolshevik Revolution and were responsible for the killing of tens of millions of people.
If there was ever a lucrative target to blast for racism and "collectivism," the exclusively Jewish state of Israel should be at the top of the list. Yet never not once does one ever hear from the Birchers so much as a little peek-a-boo from them about this issue.
Other racially squeamish libertarians
The Mises Institute is a prime example of an anarcho-libertarian think tank in America. It is also an example of "controlled opposition." The Institute lauds Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard, all of whom were Jewish. They might criticize Israel obliquely, but rarely if ever Jews directly. One of their writers even wrote a piece using libertarian theory to apologize for Jewish stock swindler Mike Milken. They generally favor free trade and open borders and minimize the impact that all of this is having on accelerating the replacement of whites with nonwhites in America.
In all likelihood, the Mises Institute is heavily funded with Jewish money.
When you follow Jewish money, you discover that things can get ideologically confusing very quickly.
While it is true that elite Jews tend to be far to the left when it comes to domestic U.S. policies, they also tend to be very much to the right when it comes to Israel.
This is simply part of the ancient formula: Be openly left wing towards people outside your tribe to keep them disarmed and off guard, and conversely be quietly right wing among members of your own tribe to maintain cohesion at all costs.
As an example, in his March 15, 2007 antiwar radio interview, Justin Raimondo described how extremely wealthy elite Jews staunchly side with Israel's ultra right Likud Party and have funded the steady push by America's mostly Jewish neo-con War Party for more war in the Middle East, to include war against Iran. Paradoxically, such elite Jews have also been the major source of funding for such groups as the ADL, Southern Poverty Law Center, Coalition for Human Dignity, and other groups that usually always push for an extreme leftist agenda that favor nonwhites at the expense of white interests.
You can see the constraints of the Mises Institute working against someone like Dr. Hans Hermann Hoppe, who I mentioned earlier as author of Democracy: The God That Failed. This man is brilliant. However, I think that in the long run the clarity of his work is crippled by his inability to explicitly address Jewish supremacist and white racialist issues. I think that he is also constrained by the University of Nevada at Las Vegas where he holds a professorship. The university once threatened to fire him when statements he made about how homosexuals tend to have shorter time preferences than straight people (from a theoretical economic perspective) created an uproar by gay activists.
Certainly one luxury I enjoy here at America First Books by not being funded by government money is that I have a lot more freedom to tell these militant and obnoxious anti-First Amendment queers where to shove it.
I think that Democracy: The God That Failed makes more sense when one can read between the lines from a white racial nationalist perspective. I would observe that corruption by public officials in a republican system is generally lower in racially homogeneous white society because they feel a stronger sense of common values with the general population and sense of protectiveness and long term identification with the welfare of their shared racial and ethnic constituency.
The runaway spending of social democracies that Dr. Hoppe describes in the 20th century happens to coincide with societies that were shattered, sickened, and depleted by the maulings they received in World Wars One and Two. They were also influenced by Communist Russia and Zionist-dominated America to become less white nationalist and more multi-racial and multi-cultural. These increasingly "multi" societies became increasingly relativistic in their moral thinking and less able to discern right from wrong or to explicitly profess honest policies.
The runaway spending of social democracies in the 20th century also coincided with societies where most of such strategic bases as banking, government, business, and academia had been heavily replaced, compromised, or taken over by Jewish supremacists and other aliens. These miscreants typically held very divergent and even parasitic interests relative to the general populations. Not surprisingly, they have sickened their hosts much like the impact of viral invasions on the nuclei of healthy cells.
A private-property monarchical regime that has been compromised by aliens and incompetents is every bit as dangerous, if not more so, than a high jacked republican system. On this issue, I tend to side with Thomas Jefferson. While the American ambassador to France, he wrote letters where he ridiculed members of certain royal families of Europe as bums, scoundrels, traitors, and lunatics.
We get back to the point often made by political philosophers that it is often more the men who make the system than the system that makes the men. Because I am a libertarian on an emotional level, I like the higher level of political decentralization implied by a republican system. At the same time, on an intellectual level I recognize that in order to be viable, a republican society requires a high level of white ethnic and racial loyalty, public altruism, education, and moral character evenly distributed among the general population. Thomas Paine summed it up well when he said in Common Sense "when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues."
In summary, protecting white group genetic interests by retaining white racial homogeneity may appear "collectivist" to the John Birchers, but in reality it protects the very social fabric that supports the private property rights essential to opposing communist-style collectivism. So the net effect of retaining white homogeneity is actually "anti-collectivist" and in favor of retaining personal property rights and individual liberty rather than in any way "collectivist."
...and now a few good words for the Mises Institute and the John Birch Society
Despite all their shortcomings, I can say with a straight face that I have been a regular reader of Mises Institute articles and have listened to most of their lectures. The Mises Institute hosts a lot of extremely valuable information about the theory and history of classical liberalism and classical economics. I also find that quite a lot of material put out by the John Birch Society is also very insightful and valuable.
However, be advised that in terms of presenting a coherent explanation about how the world works that reconciles all the major ideological perspectives, I believe that both organizations have many serious limitations.
Can libertarian racial nationalists ever educate someone like Alan Greenspan?
When the day comes that America's economy collapses into a hyperinflationary depression, and many of our cities go up in flames as part of Thomas Chittum's Civil War Two scenario, certainly a major culprit future historians will look at for responsibility in setting the stage for this mass social evil will be former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.
As Federal Reserve Chairman from 1987 to 2006, Alan Greenspan presided over one of the greatest monetary expansions in American history. The real growth in the aggregate money supply often averaged roughly 10% a year since the mid 1990's. It worked like a steady dose of Brave New World's narcotic called soma on the American public. His artificially created economic "feel good" environment effectively masked for most people all the symptoms of a seriously deteriorating economy. This included a seriously declining industrial base that continually exported real jobs and productive infrastructure overseas. It also masked extreme mal investment away from productive enterprises and into highly speculative ventures. This had the effective of squandering the tens of trillions of dollars in savings of America's aging World War II and Baby Boomer generations that were vitally needed to repair and rebuild America's industrial base. The massive deception and implied criminality of Greenspan's Fed is mind-boggling.
On many Internet radio talk shows (for example Jim Puplava's Financial Sense Newshour or John Stadtmillers National Intel Report) I have heard libertarian guests or call-in responders agonize over the Greenspan enigma.
As a former economics professor, Greenspan was once a part of the tony inner circle of the arch anarcho-libertarian Ayn Rand that staunchly defended the free market against any form of government or central bank manipulation. In fact, some of his writings appear in her famous work Atlas Shrugged. One of Alan Greenspan's most famous libertarian works is his famous essay "Gold and Economic Freedom" where he defends gold as a last refuge to protect private wealth against government confiscation and other depredations of big government operators (called "statists" in libertarian jargon).
According to the Gold AntiTrust Action Committee, as Fed Chairman Greenspan orchestrated one of the greatest gold price manipulation campaigns in history. Throughout the 1990's and up until his retirement from the Fed, central banks around the world disgorged over half their gold holdings to artificially keep the price down. In fact, the Fed was involved with quite a few other major interventions that totally distorted the commodities and capital markets. This included the bailout of Long Term Capital Management during the 1998 Asian crisis. It also included the continuing covert activities of the "plunge protection team," and the "repo market" that supplies continuing liquidity to major investment banking firms. See "Move Over Adam Smith, The Hidden Hand of Uncle Sam" by well-regarded Canadian fund manager John Embry for more details.
Of course gold price manipulation by Greenspan was not entirely new. We might recollect FDR's confiscation of privately owned gold in 1933. Also, we might recollect the London Gold Pool episode of the 1960's where President Lyndon Johnson artificially suppressed gold in order to support the value of the dollar and help finance his dual "guns and butter" Vietnam War and Great Society programs.
Quite often governments like to play market manipulation games to give themselves a few extra years where they hope that they can get away with using inflation to finance programs they ordinarily would not be able to finance by openly raising taxes or increasing public debt. However, in the long run the free market always wins out over government intervention. And Alan Greenspan knows this better than anyone else.
In the case of the London Gold Pool episode, after the U.S. Government could no longer contain gold in the 1960's and early 1970's at around $35 an ounce, President Richard M. Nixon was forced to de-link the dollar from gold in 1971. In the mid to late 1970's the price of gold took off and peaked at around $850 an ounce. As a member of President Gerald Ford's Council of Economic Advisors from 1974 to 1977, Greenspan understood what was going on better than most anyone else in the country, to include why former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker had to impose the very painful remedy of creating double-digit interest rates after assuming office in 1979 to bring inflation back under control and help correct major economic distortion and mal-investment.
So what is wrong with this man? Why did this soft-spoken former economics professor from New York University with the mousy voice and nerdy Woody Allen glasses -- this good Jewish boy allegedly made good from northern Manhattan -- this supposedly staunch libertarian disciple of Ayn Rand --why would he go down the Left Hand Path by promoting massive central bank inflation and hence actively commit every vile act he denounced in "Gold and Economic Freedom"?
The two major theories that I have heard libertarian commentators commonly cite about Greenspan's contradictory behavior are:
Alan Greenspan originally intended to try to reform the Federal Reserve from within, but once in the job he became so ensconced with the trappings of power that he became seduced into doing whatever it takes to stay in his job as one of the longest running Fed chairmen in history.
b) Dr. Greenspan really intended to be a double agent, but somehow just never got around to turning the tables on the Fed with his libertarian enlightenment.
For anyone who has read The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins, or any other serious criticisms of the Fed and its private owners, it should be clear that both explanations are very unrealistic and off the mark.
The Federal Reserve Banking System provides the financial rocket fuel required to support the big government spending programs of the pro-Zionist, neo-Jacobin global imperial super state that characterizes the United States of America today. One could never ever support a large standing military or suck trillions in wealth out of the American public in support of Israel without such an enormous central bank operation in place.
America today is not run by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson types who once extolled the virtues of a limited republic while warning about the extreme dangers of maintaining a central bank in peacetime. Instead, America today is run by the very same central bank enemies that these two patriotic leaders vehemently opposed. Michael Collins Piper describes the true character of America's ruling elite in The New Jerusalem, Final Judgment, and High Priests of War. Why would these power-mad cutthroat gangsters ever allow some nerdy New York University professor to cut off their financial rocket fuel source with what they probably regard as some kind of hippie-dippy libertarian philosophy?
Conversely, why wouldn't these same evil, scheming, power-mad, psychopathic creatures be perfectly delighted to have someone like Greenspan serve as a perfect front man? After all, he shares their tribal DNA. In addition, he also probably retains a fierce first loyalty towards supporting the survival of the exclusively Jewish state of Israel. No doubt he understands deep down inside that in the final analysis Israel's need for unlimited financial support trumps everything, to include every libertarian principle he ever extolled in "Gold and Economic Freedom."
The minute the Fed money machine shuts down, America's neo-Jacobin global superstate that sends troops around the world to fight Israel's enemies under the guise of phony "terrorism" threats also shuts down. And that is when the exclusively Jewish state of Israel, which is totally dependent on U.S. aid, also shuts down.
It is all actually pretty simple. Mr. Greenspan's Jewish blood is much thicker than any of his libertarian philosophy professed in "Gold and Economic Freedom."
It is your own fault, you stupid goyim, if you cannot see this. This should be totally obvious to anyone who has spent significant time dealing with Jews, particularly in a place like Manhattan where they have achieved population critical mass, openly dominate, and all their Jewishness freely comes out into the public. Therefore, the burden is not on them to tell the truth or to act with consistency, but rather upon you to see through their schmiel. And once you see through it, it is your own fault if you gentiles in the heartland cannot organize yourself politically to do something about it. Do you think being Jewish was ever easy? Why should life be any easier for you naive and ignorant goyim schmucks in the heartland?
If you think I am laying it on thick here, I invite you to consider the famous quote by former Israeli Prime minister Menachem Begin:
Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.
Then there is Rabbi Mendel Schneerson, who said:
The body of a Jewish person, is of a totally different quality from the body of members of all other nations of the world. Bodies of the Gentiles are in vain. An even greater difference is in regard to the soul...A non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.
Lastly, we have the letter from Baruch Levy to Karl Marx, contained in 'La Revue de Paris', p.574, June 1, 1928:
The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this New World Order the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands.
There is quite a lot of material on the Internet that deals with the topic of Jewish deception and ferocious racial supremacism, so no need to go into too much detail here. However, for my own take on the underlying social dynamics of this phenomenon, please see my analysis of Jewish criminal totalitarian psychopathology in my mutualism vs. parasitism article.
Addressing the strong genetic view:
According to this perspective, an individual who believes strongly in libertarian values must live among like-minded people with a similar racial and ethnic background. Only these kinds of people will ever have enough respect for his individualism and fundamental values on a gut level to help protect his way of life in order for it to survive over the long run.
Expressed somewhat differently, in the long run the only really effective laws that we live under are those which we have the power to enforce. The only values we can effectively practice are those which are shared by a community of like-minded people with the will and power to respect them. That will and power is closely intertwined with such factors as racial "gut," shared religious beliefs, cultural norms, ancestral history, and community cohesion.
Once libertarian ideas combine with strong religious, ethnic, and racial sentiment, then the cause of liberty begins to gain some very real and very powerful traction.
Without this traction, it is relatively easy for the forces of tyranny and oppression to infiltrate, pervert, and render ineffective dissident movements. As mentioned earlier in this article, it is usually the evil establishment that opposes individual liberty that has most of the money and heavy armaments. Please see The Judas Goats by Michael Collins Piper for details.
As an experiment regarding the crucial importance of emotional ties and ethnicity, I invite the reader to go to mises.org and start reading some anarcho-libertarian academic papers on the advantages of the libertarian position. Then in contrast to this, please consider a spirited ethnic fight song such as God Save Ireland (for the uninitiated, a free downloadable WMA file of the tune is available at the base of the aforementioned link. One can also surf a lot of good musical renditions through free group file sharing services such as limewire.com). Substitute "America" for "Ireland" in the lyrics if you wish. Note the allusion to heredity in the line "the courage of their race." Note also, how in important constraining factor in achieving liberty goes beyond academic theory, and involves the willingness to risk or even accept death for acting on behalf of ones cause:
High upon the gallows tree swung the noble-hearted three.
By the vengeful tyrant stricken in their bloom;
But they met him face to face, with the courage of their race,
And they went with souls undaunted to their doom.
"God save Ireland!" said the heroes;
"God save Ireland" said they all.
Whether on the scaffold high
Or the battlefield we die,
Oh, what matter when for Ireland dear we fall!
Then ask yourself which type of approach would animate you more to stand up to the outrages identified by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts in his 15 March 2007 article "Are We Experiencing the Last Days of Constitutional Rule?"
As part of our experiment, who can forget the stirring rendition of La Marseillaise in the movie Casablanca in which (as noted by the Wikipedia article) French resistance sympathizers used the song to drown out the Nazi soldiers who were singing "Die Wacht am Rhein"? (watch this famous 1:55 Casablanca cafe scene on YouTube). Perhaps one of the best renditions of La Marseillaise I have ever heard is by Mireille Mathieu, also found on YouTube or at the 11:10 mark of the 28 July 2005 MP3 file (download here) of the Cloak and Dagger interview of Capt Eric May. This anthem is filled, incidentally, with both ethnic and racial allusions. It talks about watering fields with "tainted blood" and exclaims: "Frenchmen, for us, ah! What outrage,
What fury it must arouse!"
|Allons enfants de la Patrie
Le jour de gloire est arrivé!
Contre nous de la tyrannie
L'étendard sanglant est levé.
Entendez-vous dans les campagnes
Mugir ces féroces soldats?
Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras
Égorger vos fils et vos compagnes!
Aux armes, citoyens!
Formez vos bataillons!
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons!
Que veut cette horde d'esclaves,
De traîtres, de rois conjurés?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves
Ces fers dès longtemps préparés?
Français, pour nous, ah! Quel outrage,
Quels transports il doit exciter!
C'est nous qu'on ose méditer
De rendre à l'antique esclavage!
Aux armes, citoyens...
|Arise, children of the fatherland
The day of glory has arrived!
Against us, the tyranny's
Bloody banner is raised.
Do you hear in the fields
The howling of these savage soldiers?
They are coming into your midst
To cut the throats of your sons, your wives!
To arms, citizens!
Form your battalions!
Let us march, let us march!
May tainted blood
Water our fields!
What does this horde of slaves,
Traitors, and plotting kings want?
For whom these vile chains
These long-prepared irons?
Frenchmen, for us, ah! What outrage,
What fury it must arouse!
It is us they dare plan
To return to the old slavery!
To arms, citizens...
Across the Channel, we find that the English have their own paean to freedom in their stately anthem Land of Hope of Glory composed during the Victorian era. Note the allusion to heredity in the phrase "Who are born of thee..." Here are words from the refrain:
|Land of Hope and Glory
Mother of the Free
How shall we extoll thee
Who are born of thee
Wider still and wider
Shall they bounds be set
God who made thee mighty
Make thee mightier yet
I think that most objective connoisseurs of rebel music would agree with me that the Irish (and/or their Scotch Irish cousins) certainly have one of the best repertoires in this genre out there. I beg the reader to excuse me for this indulgence, but I would like to close this section with a few more selections from this genre to drive this point home further:
The first verses of Nation Once Again
When boyhood's fire was in my blood
I read of ancient freemen,
For Greece and Rome who bravely stood,
Three hundred men and three men;
And then I prayed I yet might see
Our fetters rent in twain,
And Ireland, long a province, be.
A Nation once again!
Then there is Highland Paddy, named for Irishmen who had emigrated to Scotland who later returned to fight in the Rebellion of 1798. The uprising was significantly inspired, incidentally, by both the American and French Revolutions. Unfortunately for the Irish rebel cause, the uprising eventually got crushed. I think this song is especially interesting because it is not only very rich with ethnic coloration, but also because its tone avoids militant swaggering and instead suggests camaraderie, quiet courage, pathos and martyrdom.
One evening fair as the sun was shining,
To Kilkenny I did ride,
I did meet with Captain Brady
a tall commander by his side.
Then you are welcome Highland Paddy,
By my side you'll surely stand,
hear the people shout for freedom,
we'll rise in the morning with the Fenian band,
Rise in the morning with the Fenian band.
In the mornin' we rose early
Just before the break of dawn
blackbirds singing in the bushes
Greetings to a smiling morn.
Gather round me men of Ireland
Gather Fenians gather round
Hand to hand with sword and musket
Spill the blood upon this holy ground.
There's a glen beside the river
Just outside Kilkenny Town
There we met this noble captain
Men lay dead upon the ground.
Then you are welcome Highland Paddy,
By my side you'll surely stand,
hear the people shout for freedom,
we'll rise in the morning with the Fenian band,
Rise in the morning with the Fenian band.
There's a grave beside the river
A mile outside Kilkenny Town
There we laid our noble captain
Birds were silent when this Fenian died
All my life I will remember
I'll remember night and day
That once I rode into Kilkenny
And I heard this noble captain say.
Then you are welcome Highland Paddy,
By my side you'll surely stand,
hear the people shout for freedom,
we'll rise in the morning with the Fenian band,
Rise in the morning with the Fenian band.
Proceed to commentary
for question 14
Years Ago Polish Patriots Challenged Their Communist Rulers
With A "Solidarity Revolution;" Can Americans
Learn From This Lesson? by Jacek Szkudlarek,