28 August, 2007

Russo Redux (Sort Of)

Posted by Socrates in individualism, jew mentality, jewed culture, libertarians, Socrates, White philosophy, White thought at 10:31 pm | Permanent Link

It wasn’t surprising to learn that the Jewish filmmaker Aaron Russo – who died a few days ago and whose death was mentioned by VNN – wasn’t merely a libertarian but was a libertarian activist who was once a presidential candidate. Why wasn’t it surprising? Because libertarianism is a Jewish movement posing as a freedom movement [1]. Libertarianism consists of conflicting, race-denying, individualistic ideas. It was designed to attract and brainwash certain gentiles who wouldn’t follow other political movements, such as the Jewish-led “liberal” a.k.a. “progressive” movement. Do you think it’s just a coincidence that people such as Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, Frank Chodorov, Aaron Director, Julian Simon – i.e., most of the big names in the libertarian movement – were Jews? Even today, many of the top people in libertarianism are Jewish. The ones who aren’t Jewish simply don’t understand the nature of it. Sadly, libertarianism has crept into conservative circles, further Jewing an already-too-Jewed movement (i.e., “neoconservatism” and “Judeo-Christianity”). Libertarianism was created to prevent gentiles from thinking and acting in a collective manner. Like communism and feminism, it’s another Jewish “-ism.”

[1] genetically Jewish, not religiously Jewish


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 09/05/17 An Anti-Fascist Statement 49% similar
  3. 02/23/10 Sort-Of Loosening of Goy Control 36% similar
  4. 07/22/17 Thoughts On Feminism 34% similar
  5. 06/17/09 Enron, Fastow, and the Looting of America 31% similar
  6. 11/12/07 Nixon Tapes Redux 29% similar
  7. 37 Responses to “Russo Redux (Sort Of)”

    1. Stewart Gavin Says:

      I like Alex Linder’s new term for them: “Littletarians”

    2. Libertardianism Sucks Says:

      Libertardians care about one thing and one thing only: money, money, money. That’s it.

      They don’t give a damn about racial survival or any other non-monetary issue. They’re like Republicans, only more elitist and more plutocratic.

    3. John Says:

      Why dont the filthy kikes take their Libertarianism BS to I$rael.

      In I$rael the Jews think and act in a collective manner yet to the Americans they preach unrestrained capitalism and ‘libertarianism’.

    4. Steve Says:

      The variety we need is LibertARYANism.

    5. zoomcopter Says:

      I agree, Libertarianism is similar to the John Birch Society, in that they both divert people from the real hidden knowledge, which is, that jews are pulling the strings in politics and culture.

    6. Mark Says:

      Patriotards, Con-servatives, and Libertardians all have the same fixation, argue over technicalities such as “illegal” aliens. You’ll find a lot of these people who argue so strongly against illegal immigration have non-white immigrant spouses, like the big bad Lou Dobbs who’s married to a mixed-race Mexican woman. Don’t mind any reasons of race, heritage, tradition, or folkish spirit, no let’s just argue about what laws are being broken. It’s all superficial and doesn’t address deeper issues.

    7. Marwinsing Says:

      So we have neotards, retrotards, turdworldiemudtards, libertards, patriotards – help me somebody me’s havin’ another I.D crisis!

      Oh what-the-fuck… me’ll just settle for bein’ a ornary-common-law-garden snake-ecto-peri-omni-dronaculating-neo-nazi-tard-hi-hi!

      (the albino variety, of course – and well-fanged heh-heh…)

    8. Bolg Says:

      …I agree, Libertarianism is similar to the John Birch Society, in that they both divert people from the real hidden knowledge, which is, that jews are pulling the strings in politics and culture…

      I guess the John Birch Society got subverted as virtually all mainstream political movements in the White world. Revilo Oliver was a member of the JBS and he certainly didn’t divert from the jewish question.

    9. Tim Harris Says:

      It took me many years to “see through” the fallacy of libertarianism, so I congratulate you on getting there so quickly. But some distinctions are still called for.

      Ron Paul is criticized as being a libertarian. However, remember that a President that actually followed the Constitution would “look” libertarian to a large extent. He would not impose it on the States, however, where the real action would take place. Indeed, just because of that non-imposition is why he would look libertarian.

    10. Olde Dutch Says:

      I’ve always thought it amusing that “von Mises” was a jew. Good little analysis of the jewish roots of looneyterianism. Think of the millions of dollars those libertarian jews got out of decent minded White men to further another false flag jewish philosophy.

      Btw, I think VNN should get into newsprint print again.

      Someone suggested calling a VNN publication, The American Alternative. That’s an excellent moniker. You can name the jew, in both hard & subtle fashion without being retro, crude, or alien.

      I don’t think this jew war is getting anymore popular!

    11. jules j. jewels Says:

      Tell Me Again, Why Are You a Libertarian?

      by Wilton D. Alston (Negro)

      “Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper name.”
      ~ Ayn Rand, Anthem

      “Belief is beautiful armor.
      It makes for the heaviest sword.
      Like punching underwater, you never can hit who you’re trying for.”
      ~ “Belief,” John Mayer, Continuum

      It should come as no surprise to anyone reading this article to find out that I’m a member of a number of on-line discussion groups. (This is tantamount to a geek admitting that he watches Star Trek!) I’m a member of one listserve devoted to my fraternity, several devoted to the college I attended, and a couple devoted to the issues of libertarianism, including what it does and/or does not entail. (Geek Definition Alert: a listserve is a group of e-mail addresses that all receive any message sent by any member as long as it is addressed to the list. In essence is it a mailing list, managed automatically and available via a specific name that is itself an e-mail address.)

      One issue that is seminal to my belief in libertarianism generally – and market anarchism particularly – is that of racism and how it is manifest in a world where performance and freedom truly hold sway. What I mean here is not that people in a truly free society suddenly forget their preferences or their biases and we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya all day while eating mangos and chitterlings. What I mean is that no one receives any help or hindrance from some over-arching body simply because they inhabit skin of one shade or another. One can clearly see my thoughts on this matter from my very first essay on LRC.

      The discussions we have on my favorite libertarian listserve about this issue are fascinating, generally. They remind me of the breadth of thought among libertarians. They also remind me of the limits to perspective that can march under the flag of ideology masquerading as logic. How market anarchism will effect the interactions of different races is a particularly fertile area of dispute. As I listen to some of my comrades debating, certain aspects of what I perceive them to mean stick in my craw just a little bit. One such area is the recurring theme of “forced integration” that those who wish to justify closed borders always seem to posit. If any single issue is a harbinger for how far apart even those within the general category of libertarianism can be on an issue, immigration is it!

      Some seem fond of stating, as a fact, that people generally prefer to associate with those of the same race, and that this preference is natural. Certainly I do not wish to debate this point. It strikes me as a tautology searching for an application. Basically, who cares? What does it prove? What should we do differently as libertarians with this data? Is the Non-Aggression Principle modified as a result? Hardly. Do we change our approach to property rights in the wake of this shocking discovery? Nope. So again I’d ask, who gives a large rat dropping if people like to be with the groups of people they like to be with? Great! Good for them. Freedom supports this wholeheartedly.

      I gather from many of our discussions that there are a number of authors who tend to rely on pointing out these things. All too often, these people are celebrated as being “anti-PC” and as such, heroes of a sort. I hear their names and their articles quoted more often than I’d like. Occasionally these people – whom I frankly have no interest in knowing more about – speak eloquently (and apparently persuasively) about the ostensibly high likelihood of problems or unrest should the races mix, whatever “mixing” entails. That this cannot be classified as the same type of race baiting made famous by such forward thinkers as Hitler probably should shock me, but after a while on these lists – and active attendance at more than one Internet intellectual rodeo – fortunately or unfortunately, it does not. (No doubt these authors mention dogs and cats sleeping together and a flood or two as well in their screed, but that’s probably unfair to racists everywhere, so I apologize for saying it.)

      Here’s the thing about this forced integration objection that amazes me. It only makes sense based upon the current U.S. racial demographic. (We’re working on that though. Pass the salsa homes!) A white person in the U.S. can possibly avoid almost all contact with another race, if he really tries hard. A black person who ascribes to such a view would rapidly find it impractical. I simply cannot avoid routine, dare I say, intimate contact with other races.

      I am, as best I can tell, the only black person who posts to that particular libertarian list frequently. I am one of a few black people who write for LRC regularly, again, as far as I can tell. I am relatively certain that if I attended the Austrian Scholars Conference with plans of spending a lot of time with only “my people” I’d be in for a disappointment. To all these points, I have but one sentiment. So what?

      My perfect scenario would be to live in a world where no one gives a flying hockey puck about the race of another. I don’t feel this way because I’m more evolved or less interested, or because I haven’t had bad experiences with other races in the past. (Heck, I’ve had a few bad experiences with my own race too.) I don’t place a lot of emphasis on race because that is simply not a viable option. Such an approach would be largely counterproductive for any American black person. For an American black man who subscribes to the logic of libertarianism it would be ridiculous!

      However, some libertarians suggest, as best I can determine – supported by “thinkers” of some ilk – that this overt reliance upon race makes sense as a personal modus operandi. Some even suggest that initially evaluating people based upon race is “efficient.” Why would collectivist logic make sense in this case, yet not in the many other cases we libertarians debate? Why not use majority rule if the collective is a viable logical unit? Because people are individuals and treating them as such is the only valid moral option.

      Let’s try a thought experiment. If we – given whatever race each of us is – were in a locale with a different racial demographic, say, Africa, would this point of view – evaluate by race first – be reasonable? What about if we lived in Japan? I think we would see such an approach for the folly that it is. One of the lessons I have found the most powerful in my quest for truth via libertarianism is that of universal morality.

      By extension, the argument from morality has been foundational in much of my thinking. Applying that principle to this issue of race relations leads me to one conclusion: Any technique for interacting with people that I would use here in the States, that I would not use if I were in Africa or Japan, is flawed. The people are of the same species, with the same inalienable rights, sharing the same frailties. (Yes, of course, local customs may differ from place-to-place. I’m not talking about when one takes off his shoes. I’m talking about whether or not one respects and values the person with whom he is about to interact, ceteris paribus.) How I interact with an individual cannot be different based upon something inconsequential to that relationship such as geography. My approach to people should work just as well in Nebraska as in Harlem as in Zimbabwe as in Israel as in Saudi Arabia. If it does not, then my approach – and all mental gymnastics I’ve employed to justify it – is flawed in a very basic way.

      Conclusion

      There have been other essays that speak powerfully about the larger issue we discuss here. The basic point I attempt to make is: An overly strong belief in or reliance upon any group – be it a group created by biology or a group created by ideology – is absolutely bound to lead to improper conclusions and actions, particularly if one forgets to employ evidence, logic, and reason. The ideas are the thing, not the groups. Individuals exist in reality; groups exist only in the abstract.

      If we – the people ostensibly committed to freedom and liberty for all – want to evaluate based upon groups, then let’s stop spouting off about all this individual freedom stuff – and the sooner the better.

      April 19, 2007

      Wilt Alston [send him mail] lives in Rochester, NY, with his wife and three children. When he’s not training for a marathon or furthering his part-time study of libertarian philosophy, he works as a principal research scientist in transportation safety, focusing primarily on the safety of subway and freight train control systems.

      Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

      Here’s another, from Strike the Root:

      The saddest thing is that we know exactly how to bring peace to the Middle East –and everywhere else for that matter! Solving the problem of collective violence might have been a real head-scratcher in the Middle Ages, but it takes a truly modern education to pretend ignorance now!

      It’s embarrassingly simple, of course, but you’ll wear out the batteries on your TV remote scanning for a mention of it anywhere.

      What is the solution to the problem of collective violence? Why, just this:

      Stop believing in groups!

      “Groups” don’t exist, any more than a “forest” exists independently of the trees it describes. A “Jew” doesn’t exist. An “Arab” doesn’t exist; neither does “ Israel ” or “Muslim.” There are people and land and trees and sky. There are no “groups.”

      http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/molyneux/molyneux1.html

    12. Brian Stone Says:

      I disagree.

      The libertarian movement was taken over and run by jews for the same reason that every other movement has been. Jews found it useful to their agenda. That doesn’t make the principles of libertarianism (i.e. individual liberty) a bad thing per se. A healthy Aryan society is one that is based on individual liberty, free markets and limited government; in addition to being jew free.

      The problem with libertarianism isn’t that it ended up controlled by a bunch of jews, but that it denied the fact of race and the consequences that derives from that fact. For libertarians to insist that all that matters is the individual is to ignore basic facts of nature, and that is either cowardice or anti-intellectualism, two things libertarians often pride themselves on being against.

      But don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. I realize many WN are inclined to socialism, but that is a movement infested by jews just as much as the libertarian movement was and is.

      -Brian

    13. sgruber Says:

      “There are no ‘groups’…a ‘jew’ doesn’t exist…; neither does ‘Israel’…’ says the jew, while his brother taxes and jails you for the sake of the “chosen people,” which includes his brother…

      It’s really about time to act. Enough talk. “It” won’t come unless somebody brings it.

    14. Craig J. Bolton Says:

      Hey, hey, hey, you got that right. LIbertarianism is a Jewish movement, just like the Radical Englightenment of 16th Century Holland, the English Revolution of the 17th Century and the American Revolution of the 18th Century. We Jews have always been the prime promoters of individual liberty and free enterprise. So screw yourselves, you collectivist Seig Heiling goose stepping Nazi robotic scum.

    15. Tim Harris Says:

      I’m sorry, could someone summarize Joo Jewels’ post? I keep falling asleep somewhere in the second or third paragraph.

    16. New America Says:

      in reply to jules k. jewels:
      The Negro Alston’s Analysis reveals the triumph of wishful thinking over reasoned analysis.

      I’ll just summarize his main points with quotes, and follow them with comments.

      Tell Me Again, Why Are You a Libertarian?

      by Wilton D. Alston (Negro)

      “Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper name.”
      ~ Ayn Rand, Anthem

      “Belief is beautiful armor.
      It makes for the heaviest sword.
      Like punching underwater, you never can hit who you’re trying for.”
      ~ “Belief,” John Mayer, Continuum

      *snip*
      *end snip*

      Wilton D. Alston wrote:
      One issue that is seminal to my belief in libertarianism generally – and market anarchism particularly – is that of racism and how it is manifest in a world where performance and freedom truly hold sway. What I mean here is not that people in a truly free society suddenly forget their preferences or their biases and we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya all day while eating mangos and chitterlings. What I mean is that no one receives any help or hindrance from some over-arching body simply because they inhabit skin of one shade or another. *snip* *end snip*

      in reply:
      Here, Alston is arguing, not against racism per se, but rather against Institutional Racism, in general, and the power of the State to define racial preferences, in particular.

      So far, so good!

      Wilton D. Alston wrote:
      *snip* *end snip*
      If any single issue is a harbinger for how far apart even those within the general category of libertarianism can be on an issue, immigration is it!

      Some seem fond of stating, as a fact, that people generally prefer to associate with those of the same race, and that this preference is natural. Certainly I do not wish to debate this point. *snip* *end snip* Great! Good for them. Freedom supports this wholeheartedly.

      in reply:
      As we wait for the Other Shoe to drop…

      Wilton D. Alston wrote:
      *snip* *end snip*

      Here’s the thing about this forced integration objection that amazes me. It only makes sense based upon the current U.S. racial demographic. (We’re working on that though. Pass the salsa homes!) A white person in the U.S. can possibly avoid almost all contact with another race, if he really tries hard. A black person who ascribes to such a view would rapidly find it impractical. I simply cannot avoid routine, dare I say, intimate contact with other races.

      *snip* *end snip*

      My perfect scenario would be to live in a world where no one gives a flying hockey puck about the race of another. I don’t feel this way because I’m more evolved or less interested, or because I haven’t had bad experiences with other races in the past. (Heck, I’ve had a few bad experiences with my own race too.) I don’t place a lot of emphasis on race because that is simply not a viable option. Such an approach would be largely counterproductive for any American black person. For an American black man who subscribes to the logic of libertarianism it would be ridiculous!

      *snip* *end snip*

      Let’s try a thought experiment. If we – given whatever race each of us is – were in a locale with a different racial demographic, say, Africa, would this point of view – evaluate by race first – be reasonable? What about if we lived in Japan? I think we would see such an approach for the folly that it is. One of the lessons I have found the most powerful in my quest for truth via libertarianism is that of universal morality.

      in reply:
      “Universal morality” simply does not exist; it is a rationalization that exists solely to make much of what is otherwise wishful thinking even remotely possible.

      The only “morality’ that is “universal” is, remarkably, RACIAL.

      If we use Sailer’s excellent working definition of RACE – a tremendous extended Family – we see that “universal morality” is really only moral to the extent that is serves the Family, as the microcosm of the RACE, and the RACE, as the macrocosm of the Family.

      The concrete manifestation of morality – legal systems, both formal and informal – are only relevant to each Culture, and to the RACE that creates, sustains, and transforms that Culture.

      Thus, for instance, the morality of Asian Culture places no real value on the rights of the Individual; the RACE is all.

      The morality of what the West has largely become is dramatically different; there are no Libertarians in Asia, where Family remains the foundation of society, and any choice between the Family and the Nation-State is inevitably settled in favor of the Family.

      So, the only “universal morality” is, ironically, a RACIAL morality…

      Wilton D. Alston wrote:
      By extension, the argument from morality has been foundational in much of my thinking. Applying that principle to this issue of race relations leads me to one conclusion: Any technique for interacting with people that I would use here in the States, that I would not use if I were in Africa or Japan, is flawed.

      in reply:
      DAMN!

      Zimbabwe’s Cathy Buckle feels the same way!

      I’ll be sure to get in contact with Cathy Buckle in Zimbabwe, and ask her how that’s working for her!

      That what comes from projecting a false “universal morality” onto people who are, essentially, immoral.

      Be sure to ask Cathy Buckle about that, if you see her.

      Better hurry; looks like time is running out for her, and all of the White people in Zimbabwe, and South Africa.

      Wilton D. Alston wrote:
      The people are of the same species, with the same inalienable rights, sharing the same frailties. (Yes, of course, local customs may differ from place-to-place. I’m not talking about when one takes off his shoes. I’m talking about whether or not one respects and values the person with whom he is about to interact, ceteris paribus.) How I interact with an individual cannot be different based upon something inconsequential to that relationship such as geography.

      in reply:
      “Geography” is, essentially, a proxy for Culture – RACIAL Culture, at that.

      I have little doubt the WHITE people of Zimbabwe and South Africa would be right at home in the European culture of the geographic entity known as Krasnodar, which is where they should flee to…

      While they can.

      “Geography,” in their case, will be anything BUT “inconsequential,” and the consequences will be seen, all too soon.

      Wilton D. Alston wrote:
      My approach to people should work just as well in Nebraska as in Harlem as in Zimbabwe as in Israel as in Saudi Arabia. If it does not, then my approach – and all mental gymnastics I’ve employed to justify it – is flawed in a very basic way.

      in reply:
      Well, yes,

      What you call “mental gymnastics” seem to be little more than a mask for ignorance, wishful thinking, and, to a degree, intellectual dishonesty.

      Cathy Buckle would seem to be right at home with your “mental gymnastics.”

      Damn shame the Africans aren’t.

      Wilton D. Alston wrote:
      Conclusion

      There have been other essays that speak powerfully about the larger issue we discuss here. The basic point I attempt to make is: An overly strong belief in or reliance upon any group – be it a group created by biology or a group created by ideology – is absolutely bound to lead to improper conclusions and actions, particularly if one forgets to employ evidence, logic, and reason. The ideas are the thing, not the groups. Individuals exist in reality; groups exist only in the abstract.

      in reply:
      Don’t tell Cathy Buckle!

      Don’t tell the WHITE people who have suffered so brutally at the hands of their potential Brothers-In-Christ!

      We wouldn’t want to disillusion them about RACE, would we?

      Wilton D. Alston wrote:
      If we – the people ostensibly committed to freedom and liberty for all – want to evaluate based upon groups, then let’s stop spouting off about all this individual freedom stuff – and the sooner the better.

      in reply:
      Western Civilization is the only Culture that even HAS “all this individual freedom stuff ,” or, really, any need for it whatsoever.

      That’s why the uniquely advanced Institutions created by the WHITE people of Western Civilization – democracy, due process of law, trial by peers, the nation state, all of that – ONLY apply to WHITE people IN Western Civilization.

      The Less Advanced Races simply do not have the spiritual-Cultural foundations needed to make such Institutions work at all, much less flourish. Cathy Buckle – soon to be, if trends continue, the late Cathy Buckle – and those like her, will realize this, all too soon.

      You see, only WE can make “all this individual freedom stuff,” which are the matters for Form, work at all, because they require the transcendent foundation of a social ordering only the WHITE RACE can manifest, much less develop.

      Incidentally, in time, you might come to realize what we at VNN learned the painfully hard way: “Libertarianism” is simply an inherently false JEWISH construction, designed to divide us and keep us RACIALLY impotent, while, for themselves, the demonic Goddamned JEWS go to great lengths to insure their RACIAL UNITY grows ever stronger, as a tool to be used against all other RACES, in general, and the WHITE RACE, most of all.

    17. ART FART Says:

      Race & Groups: The Libertarian Blind Spot
      By John “Birdman” Bryant

      John Donne could never have been a libertarian because he believed that “No man is an island”, while libertarians seem to prefer a sort of reverse philosophy which holds that every man is an island. In particular, libertarians are so busy celebrating “the individual” that they give little or no attention to a phenomenon which is at least as important as individuals on the political landscape, namely, groups. It is true, of course, that groups can be regarded as collections of individuals, but it would be foolish to try to discuss politics purely on the basis of the behavior of individuals and without reference to groups, just as it would be foolish to try to describe the operation of a computer purely on the basis of the behavior of individual molecules and without reference to such important molecular groups as chips, wires, cards and hard disks.

      In a way, libertarianism’s greatest success is in dealing with a very important group — government — by pointing out that social happiness is generally proportional to the extent to which the government keeps its nose out of the business of the citizens. But libertarians virtually ignore the political impact of all other groups, and in particular have failed to heed Lord Acton’s injunction that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. And altho I am certainly no fan of the Left, it is clear that the Left has a far better grip on reality than the libertarians with respect to Acton’s observation, since the Left long ago recognized the danger which corporations pose to the body politic.

      So what then are the groups on the political landscape which libertarians ignore? They include groups with a financial interest in politics (corporations, labor unions), groups with a racial, ethnic, sexual or similar interest (blacks, Jews, homosexuals) and those with other specialized interests (gun control, gun rights, anti-censorship, anti-porn, medical freedom, etc). Such groups are not limited to lobbying organizations, but include any type of organization that has political clout.

      Actually, it is not quite right to say that libertarians ignore these groups, since libertarians probably do direct mail solicitations to many of them. But what libertarians fail to appreciate is that it makes far more sense to view the political game as having these groups as the players, rather than the vaunted “individual” with which libertarians are so enamored. The problem, however, is not just that libertarians organize their political perceptions poorly. Rather it is that their focus on the individual keeps them from seeing how the political process works, and thus prevents them from being an effective part of it, and in addition has caused them to embrace propositions which directly contradict basic libertarian principles.

      To explain, we begin by noting that the essence of the American political process — at least as it involves legislative activity — is not what the Founders conceived it to be (and what most libertarians seem to think it is), namely, the reflective consideration of what constitutes the greatest good for the greatest number. Instead, the political process may be summarized in one simple phrase: paying off the (few very wealthy) individuals who supply substantial money and the constituencies who supply both substantial money and substantial votes. And who are the constituencies? Very simply, they are the groups which libertarians ignore, and which constitute the major players in the political process. And what is more, such groups are the driving forces behind the types of legislation that libertarians hate: Welfare is driven by the black block vote; the largest recipient of foreign aid is Israel, driven by the notoriously-powerful Israeli lobby; laws hindering business are driven by labor unions; dumbed-down federalized education is driven by teachers’ unions; restrictions on alternative medicine are driven by medical organizations and drug manufacturers; affirmative action is driven by large companies seeking to hurt their smaller competition for whom such programs are a greater proportional burden; drug laws are driven by anti-freedom groups and the enforcement bureaucracies, and so on.

      But even more important than the libertarian blind spot on groups is the fact mentioned above that ignoring groups has caused libertarians to violate fundamental libertarian principles. To explain, we note that libertarians are enthusiastic advocates of private property, and apparently have no objection to multiple-owner property such as condominiums or stockholder-owned corporations. So logically it would seem they would agree with the notion that countries are owned by their citizens, and may rightfully be defended by force from invaders and other trespassers. And yet we hear no end of libertarians who sing the praises of “open borders” and unlimited immigration.

      Which, to put it kindly, is illogical. And also insane.

      The insanity springs from what in philosophy is known as reductionism, ie, the belief that the whole is just the simple sum of its parts. The reductionist, then, holds that a country is just a bunch of disconnected individuals, hopefully libertarians.

      But this is foolish. A country is not a disconnected bunch of individuals, no matter how much libertarians think they are disconnected from everything except the Internet. It is a group of people who share a language and culture, with the result that their values are similar, and their desire to live together in the same geographic location is considerable. In Sir Walter Scott’s words:

      Breathes there the man with soul so dead
      Who never to himself hath said
      “This is my own, my native land”?
      Whose heart hath ne’er within him burned
      As homeward his footsteps he hath turned
      From wandering on a foreign strand?
      If such there be, go mark him well:
      For him no minstrel raptures swell;
      High tho his titles, proud his name,
      Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
      Despite those titles, power and pelf,
      The wretch concentered all in self;
      Living, shall forfeit fair renown
      And doubly dying, shall go down
      To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
      Unwept, unhonored and unsung.

      Love of country, like love of one’s mate or one’s family, is often not well-perceived until separation. But it is real and palpable, and it has driven men since the dawn of time, as it drives them today. So for that overeducated clique of highbrow deep-thinkers known as libertarians to simply toss this emotion into the intellectual wastebasket as if it were somehow irrelevant to social order is fatuity raised to the nth degree.

      Love of country, like love of family, depends on one element more than any other: likeness. One’s countrymen are like oneself in language and culture, just as one’s family is like oneself in genetic relationship. In fact, this notion is so basic as to be rooted in our very language, and not just once, but twice: We like those whom we are like, and we are kind to those of our own kind.

      And one of those elements of likeness is race. It is not the only likeness — language and culture are also likenesses — and it may not be crucial in all cases to regarding someone as one’s countryman, but it is clearly important.

      So what, then, is going to happen to a country which allows open borders (particularly coupled with the temptation of such freebies as welfare and Social Security), whose president celebrates the end of history for the white majority, and where the cult of multiculturalism is rammed down employers’ throats and slipped quietly into the minds of youngsters by the New World Orderlies of the Education Establishment? What will happen is very simple: The country, along with its culture and language, and probably its race, is going to dissolve.

      And that, as it turns out, does not bode well for libertarians. This is because America, more than any other place on earth, has nourished the idea of individual liberty and brought it to fruition. The culture of America is the culture of liberty. But liberty-loving libertarians seem indifferent to throwing all that away. They are so enamored with corporate profits and so indifferent to the culture which has emerged from the coordinated efforts of the white European race that they are quite happy to flush the American nation down the toilet by allowing swarms of Turd- worlders to intermingle with, and eventually replace, the core American population. And even worse, sending the American nation down the tubes may in the long run turn out not to be as profitable as believed by the calculating Economic Man which libertarians have reduced human beings to; for shipping jobs overseas when American workers are too “inefficient” means the loss of an industrial base and the skills of workers who are employed in that industrial base, a situation which leaves the nation vulnerable in times of war when “free trade” is only a memory. Yes, it is perfectly true that this may result in higher prices for labor, and thus for consumer goods, but pricey goods are a small price to pay for priceless culture. Or to put the matter another way, Do libertarians really want to sell their freedom for a filthy mess of Turd-world free-trade pottage?

      Part of the open-borders/free-trade problem is that libertarians recognize that, without the temptation of government handouts, immigrants who come here would be those who want to work, and would therefore — at least from an economic standpoint — be good for the country. But this fact still doesn’t change the culture argument against open borders, or the reality of immigration as it is now going on. Nor does it change the fact that, if the lower-status jobs which immigrants usually take cannot be filled, this will generate pressure for mechanization and automation which will have a long-term beneficial economic effect.

      We spoke earlier about the libertarian blind spot about race, and it is only fair to mention that this blind spot is partly the result of the desire on the part of libertarians to be regarded as “tolerant”. And while we may acknowledge this as a nobly-intentioned sentiment, the ugly fact is that we are all racists. We are racists because evolution has made it instinctive for every living thing to love its own kind — and what is racism but the love of one’s own kind? How fatuous it is to think that we are morally obligated to toss out the product of a billion years of evolution in order to keep from being guilty of a sin which was regarded as a virtue till only yesterday!

      The reason evolution has made racism instinctive is that group membership helps the individual to survive. Groups give the individual members protection against other rival groups — and if you don’t believe it, just arrange for a sojurn in one of our multicultural prisons. So for libertarians to ignore man’s racial nature — to say nothing of the fact that the notion of individual liberty is a product of white European culture — is both unscientific and — if I may say so — suicidal.

      In conclusion, if libertarians are realistic enuf to admit — and indeed to celebrate — man’s selfish nature, isn’t it time that they admitted and celebrated his racial nature as well? Or maybe all they need to do is realize that an interest in their race is really a selfish interest.

      * * Back to the Home Page of John “Birdman” Bryant, the World’s Most Controversial Author * *

    18. PK Says:

      So let me get this straight. Because there aren’t any Jews out there who say “hate me and kick me out of the country,” every Jewish “-ism” is a lie that is bad for everyone. You aren’t happy until the Jews advocate mass suicide.

      I talk about everything – including race and the Jews – in my book. And I’m a Jew. I’m not a religious Jew, but I’m a racial Jew. And in my book, I explain everything better than you will ever explain anything.

    19. MHR Says:

      We Jews have always been the prime promoters of individual liberty…

      Tell that to Ernst Zundel you dirty little heeb.

    20. Revilo Says:

      To PK: Every jewish “ism” intended for gentile consumption denies the importance of race and tribe. Your tribe is the enemy of all other tribes. It’s a very short trip from any racial or tribal awareness at all to seeing the jew. That’s why the jew must oppose racial consciousness in gentiles and rewrite history which tells the truth about the criminal history of their tribe and the rational gentile reaction to it.

    21. Socrates Says:

      PK Says: “I talk about everything – including race and the Jews – in my book. And I’m a Jew. I’m not a religious Jew, but I’m a racial Jew. And in my book, I explain everything better than you will ever explain anything.”

      “Ever,” huh? Which book do you refer to?

    22. PK Says:

      In a phrase with which you might be familiar, it’s coming. I’ll let you know when it’s ready.

    23. New America Says:

      PK wrote:

      So let me get this straight. Because there aren’t any Jews out there who say “hate me and kick me out of the country,” every Jewish “-ism” is a lie that is bad for everyone. You aren’t happy until the Jews advocate mass suicide.

      in reply:
      Well, let’s see.

      MarxISM.

      Yes, that certainly seems to be bad for everyone, except that it fulfills the requirements of the ONE JEWISH RACIAL COMMANDMENT, “Is it good for JEWS?”

      It seems to be especially “bad” for the SIXTY MILLION White Christians who suffered under the JEWISH totalitarian system of what Churchill called “JUDEO-Bolshevik” Russia.

      Another ISM formed by the demonic JEWS…

      FreudianISM.

      Yes, THAT certainly qualifies as being bad for everyone, except that it fulfills the responsiblities of the ONE JEWISH RACIAL COMMANDMENT, “Is it good for JEWS?”

      Remember, as one of the demonic RACE of JEWS, you can see how having nice shikskas paying money to the Goddamn JEWS to discuss “psychological complexes” that were the fervent imaginings of a coke-headed student of the Talmud…yes, a very profitable service industry, indeed, formed by JEWS, staffed by JEWS, and controlled by JEWS.

      LibertarianISM.

      The point was made above; the demons-who-walk-the-Earth known as JEWS have made all of the money from this, and seem to gain from insuring the White Conservatives have a political alternative that keeps them trapped in the perpetual adolescence of being dominated by the libidos.

      Thus, they could never begin to organized and pose any sort of threat to – another ISM – Jewish SupremacISM, much less the JEW-controlled Democrat Party.

      PK wrote:
      I talk about everything – including race and the Jews – in my book. And I’m a Jew. I’m not a religious Jew, but I’m a racial Jew. And in my book, I explain everything better than you will ever explain anything.

      in reply:
      Good to see a JEW refer to his own race as a RACE.

      That sort of intellectual honesty is all to rare among the demonic RACE of Goddamn JEWS.

      As we all know, the only purpose of such religion as the demonic JEWS have is only a matter of Form, and is only valid to the extent that it fulfills the ONE JEWISH RACIAL COMMANDMENT: “Is it good for JEWS?”

      By the way, what is the title of your “book?”

      The Talmud?

      Yes.

      Yes, it is.

      New America

      An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

    24. PK Says:

      Boldface type does not make your arguments stronger, New America. Excuse, but what exactly is the problem with the libertarian political philosophy? What does libertarianism have to do with libidos? The Founding Fathers were libertarians, and they didn’t have libido-control issues.

      And again, you do not argue my comment that you people aren’t happy until all of the Jews advocate mass suicide. You don’t want them here, and you don’t want them in Israel. You are the one who is demonic because you want to destroy everyone of Jewish blood just for being of Jewish blood.

      I am not a Marxist and I am not a Freudian and I am not a religious Jew. I have my own philosophy that is best for everyone.

    25. ART FART Says:

      “The Founding Fathers were libertarians”

      In the nineteenth century, libertarianism meant voluntary communism.
      Many of today’s libertarians are explicitly anarchist (market anarchism)- wanting neither state nor government.

      Didn’t someone else call for the “withering away of the state?”

    26. Hoosier Says:

      Libertarians fancy that they’re logical debaters. I should know, I used to consider myself one – then I grew up. Although some of the ideas are sound, they somehow try to ignore the realities of race. groups, hierarchies, and other things. I still am quite fond of Harry Browne’s book, “How I found Freedom in an Unfree World.”

      Let’s take a look at libertarian “logical debate”

      PK Says:
      30 August, 2007 at 7:12 pm

      Boldface type does not make your arguments stronger, New America. Excuse, but what exactly is the problem with the libertarian political philosophy? What does libertarianism have to do with libidos? The Founding Fathers were libertarians, and they didn’t have libido-control issues.

      The founding fathers were not libertarian, they were racist. The 1790 immigration laws stated that only “free white people” could become citizens of the United States.

      http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212700/final_website/laws1700-2000.html

      “1790- Naturalization is restricted to “free white persons”. This required 2 years of residency.”

      http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/USMigrat.html

      “The Naturalization Act of 1790 passed by Congress employed explicitly racial criteria limiting citizenship to free white persons; after this act was successfully challenged on behalf of blacks after the Civil War, ëAsian immigrants became the most significant ëotherí in terms of citizenship eligibilityí (Lesser, 85)” (Wong 5).”

      Strike one.

      And again, you do not argue my comment that you people aren’t happy until all of the Jews advocate mass suicide. You don’t want them here, and you don’t want them in Israel. You are the one who is demonic because you want to destroy everyone of Jewish blood just for being of Jewish blood.

      Why should anyone “argue his “comment?” Since PK made the claim, let him provide the proof. It’s up to him to provide the proof, not for any else to prove him wrong. That’s the way it works in libertarian land, isn’t it.

      Strike two.

      I am not a Marxist and I am not a Freudian and I am not a religious Jew. I have my own philosophy that is best for everyone.

      It’s not best for me, therefore this statement is – false.

      Strike three.

      So much for “logical” libertarian debate. In typical Jewish fashion, PK thinks he knows what’s best for everyone. And he has the chutzpah to say “I explain everything better than you will ever explain anything.”

      Yeah, sure he will, and any day now, monkeys are going to fly out of my ass. One things for sure, He’s a typical Jew, and full of shit up to his eyebrows. Thanks for playing, PK.

    27. New America Says:

      in reply to PK:

      you wrote:
      Boldface type does not make your arguments stronger, New America. Excuse, but what exactly is the problem with the libertarian political philosophy? What does libertarianism have to do with libidos? The Founding Fathers were libertarians, and they didn’t have libido-control issues.

      in reply:
      Which group of “Founding Fathers” are you referring to?

      Hamilton, who argued the new nation required a mercantilist national economic policy?

      You seem silent concerning the clearly expressed sentiment of the Founders concerning border integrity in the Immigration Act of 1790.

      Why is that?

      To place the issue in the present day, why do so many libertarians – JEWS, to a man – favor “Open Borders” for WHITE America?

      Why shouldn’t America have the same RACIAL Apartheid Wall that Israel has?

      Incidentally, not one of the Founders ever referred to themselves as “libertarians.” Remember, they were an Aristocracy, who limited the franchise dramatically, and supported indentured servitude – the functional equivalent of slavery – for White men. (In fact, indentured servitude was worse – the master had no concern for eminently disposable human labor.)

      Libido control issues were dealt with in the social context of the strong relationship between Church and Society, with different Churches having a stronger presence in the local Culture that compliments them. Note, for example, the differences between the churches and social structure of New England, versus the churches and social structures of, say, Virginia.

      Libertarians, in practice, place virtually no limits on the free exercise of the libido; all too often libertarians favor libertine behaviors, and this favors the control of the people.

      This is the thesis Dr. E. Michael Jones successfully propounded in Libido Dominandi; as the “liberated libido leads to anarchy,” those who liberated men from the social order needed to impose social controls. In other words (and these are my words, and not his), in time, sexual liberation leads to a totalitarian government.

      Why else would Lenin favor policies that meant “sex should be of no greater importance than drinking a glass of water?”

      Libertine practices were a means to a totalitarian end, as the (Churchill”s words) “JUDEO-Bolshevisks” knew full well.

      Libertarians, well, “liberate” men from a social order, and indeed, any order at all, save “Do What Thou Will, Shall Be The Whole Of The Law.”

      In time, of course, Man, removed from Family, the foundation of RACE, would fall into a mere animalistic state of consciousness, as the demonic Talmud clearly states we already are.

      Oh, sorry.

      White people aren’t “Mankind,” to the demonic Jews.

      We are simply “goyim,” animals in the bodies of humans.

      Well, libertine practices lead to the same control systems used for animals; after all no one ever said farms were democracies…

      PK wrote:
      And again, you do not argue my comment that you people aren’t happy until all of the Jews advocate mass suicide. You don’t want them here, and you don’t want them in Israel. You are the one who is demonic because you want to destroy everyone of Jewish blood just for being of Jewish blood.

      in reply:
      Well, if you want to lead with the jaw…

      Really, the JEWS actually do advocate the functional equivalent of mass suicide; it’s just that they advocate the functional equivalent of mass suicide for the White RACE, while insuring htat they remain RACIALLY united, in First Place.

      See what Harvard’s Noel Ignatieff has to say about the White RACE, and then tell us what our response should be, and why.

      And, I favor all Jews moving to Israel as soon as possible; of course, putting all of the parasites in a room where there aren’t any hosts isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

      I will grant the demonic JEWS the right to organize along RACIALLY exclusive lines, to the point of having their own sovereign nation-state; however, they obviously know each other so well the true Jewish RACIAL leadership prefers to remain among us, as predators among prey.

      Indeed, they need the unique gifts of Western Culture, and Western Civilization (“Western,” of course, is a synonym for “WHITE”), and go absolutely hysterical at the thought of the White RACE organizing along exclusive RACIAL lines, as defined by, say, Harold Covington’s Northwest Republic.

      Isn’t that the thrust of all demonic JEW-inspired “Civil Rights” legislation? Weaken, neutralize, and destroy any and all organizing by White people along RACIAL lines?

      Yes.

      Again, I do not want the demonic JEWS to commit suicide, although there is no better way to do that than to force them to live together in a land of RACIAL exclusivity. All of those parasites in one place, at one time, and no host to prey upon…

      Horrible!

      Not “good for JEWS,” at all!

      Again, to emphasize, it’s not that “(I) don’t want them here, and you don’t want them in Israel.”

      No.

      I want them to leave us alone.

      By any means necessary…

      you wrote:
      I am not a Marxist and I am not a Freudian and I am not a religious Jew. I have my own philosophy that is best for everyone.

      in reply:
      If your “own philosophy (that) is best for everyone,” why don’t you define it more clearly, and particularly, why don’t you define the limits of your RACIAL Identity as a JEW, in the context of “Libertarianism?”

      It’s because “Libertarianism,” and it’s economic counterparts, “Free Trade and Monetarism,” are simply philosophies that are entirely consistent with the RACE-BASED philosophy, culture, and “religion” of the demonic JEWS.

      Libertarianism, if you examine it in all of its aspects, across all of the components of Society, is a perfect example of a tool in the Cultural War the demonic JEWS practice against all other RACES; it makes Dividing and Conquering so very easy.

      The Western Response – “Unite, and Lead” – requires Men of the West, who are particularly prepared to deal with these issues.

      Such Men are being developed, even as we speak, and understand fully the RACE-based nature of the War the demonic JEWS have engaged in against us…

      It’s a war that most of us do not understand, even though we, and our posterity, have been drafted into it.

      It’s a war that most of us do not understand…

      Yet.

      That will change…

      New America

      An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

    28. Hoosier Says:

      PK writes on his website:


      “Today is the day that my book, Realism: A Philosophy for a New Millennium, was published. I changed the name of my philosophy from “Psychosophy” to “Realism” because I was not quite happy with “Psychosophy,” and I had to change the name for legal reasons.”

      “Description
      Psychosophy ( esoteric psychology ) as described in the Secret Doctrine ( Theosophy ) and the writings on astrology, psychology and the seven rays (the writings of H.P.B., H.R., A.A.B., M.C., F.L.D., G.D.P. and many other workers of goodwill).”

      It looks like a combination of libertarianism, Scientology. and the Art Bell show.

    29. New America Says:

      in reply to Hooiser:

      Hoosier wrote:
      *snip* *end snip*

      It looks like a combination of libertarianism, Scientology. and the Art Bell show.

      in reply:
      I’ve alway thought libertarianism and the Art Bell Show had a lot in common!

      Demonic Judaism – the EXACT opposite of Christianity – as a RACIAL philosophy really lends itself to a discussion of Interdimensional Reptilians!

      “Rabbi! Rabbi! Why are you eating all of those flies?”

      Demons, indeed…

      New America

      An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

    30. New America Says:

      One comment re Libertarianism versus Communism:

      This revises and extends a great insight Bob Whitaker had on hos blog, which is Libertarianism and Communism are an awful lot like one another.

      Think about it.

      They are both formulations of the demonic Goddamn JEWS, and they both assume the withering away of the State as being both worthwhile, and inevitable.

      It is that Communism replaces the State with the (demonic JEW-controlled) Communist Party, while, in Reality, Libertarians replace the State with…

      Corporations.

      Isn’t that the REAL legacy of the Reagan Revolution?

      Don’t you wonder why these Libertarian organizations seem to be well-funded?

      Nature abhors a vacuum, and political nature abhors a vacuum with intensity.

      The Libertarian fantasy – essentially, the intellectual equivalent of mutual masturbation – gets exactly nothing done, in a world where everybody matters as a matter of Form, and nobody matters, as a matter of Substance.

      Why?

      Because Libertarianism assumes EQUALITY – the tool of the Destroyer.

      As pure EQUALITY is simply does not occur in Nature, ironically, the Libertarian regime requires a totalitarian society to make it work…

      Of course, the demonic JEWS just love totalitarian societies…

      Too bad about the dope-smoking hippies of the Libertarian Party.

      New America

      An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

    31. Hoosier Says:

      Hello New America. Here’s the Libertarian solution; ignore reality.

      The ideas are the thing, not the groups. Individuals exist in reality; groups exist only in the abstract.

      If we – the people ostensibly committed to freedom and liberty for all – want to evaluate based upon groups, then let’s stop spouting off about all this individual freedom stuff – and the sooner the better.

      The saddest thing is that we know exactly how to bring peace to the Middle East –and everywhere else for that matter! Solving the problem of collective violence might have been a real head-scratcher in the Middle Ages, but it takes a truly modern education to pretend ignorance now!

      It’s embarrassingly simple, of course, but you’ll wear out the batteries on your TV remote scanning for a mention of it anywhere.

      What is the solution to the problem of collective violence? Why, just this:

      Stop believing in groups!

      “Groups” don’t exist, any more than a “forest” exists independently of the trees it describes. A “Jew” doesn’t exist. An “Arab” doesn’t exist; neither does “ Israel ” or “Muslim.” There are people and land and trees and sky. There are no “groups.”

      That’s the Libertarian solution in a nutshell. Pretty nutty, eh?
      Deny the existence of groups, or “stop believing” in them. Forests don’t exists, just an individual collection of trees. Hives don’t exist, just an individual collection of bees – all acting in their mutual self interest. Oops, except bees, acting in their individual self interest form something called a “hive” which is – a group of bees. How can a bee exist as it’s just a collection of individual molecules?

      Arabs don’t exist, or Israel, or Germany, or a football team, or a flock of birds, or a family. According to the Libertarians, nothing exists, if you take what they say literally. This paragraph does not exist, it’s just a bunch of individual words, not a group of words put together in something called a “paragraph.” Actually, it’s both a bunch of individual words AND a group of words put together.

      I must have gotten tired of trying to hallucinate reality away, and so became dismayed by the truck sized holes in the libertarian philosophy. A libertarian says “ideas are the thing, not the groups. Individuals exist in reality; groups exist only in the abstract.”

      But he or she will not be able to say WHY that would be true, other than it’s part of their religion.

    32. Hoosier Says:

      # Craig J. Bolton Says:
      29 August, 2007 at 10:35 pm

      Hey, hey, hey, you got that right. LIbertarianism is a Jewish movement, just like the Radical Englightenment of 16th Century Holland, the English Revolution of the 17th Century and the American Revolution of the 18th Century. We Jews have always been the prime promoters of individual liberty and free enterprise. So screw yourselves, you collectivist Seig Heiling goose stepping Nazi robotic scum.

      Monarchies worked better than any of your mediocre Jew schemes in the first place, and you can bet any scheme you Jews come up with has one motive and one motive only – to advance the position of Jews as a collective, nothing more or nothing less.

      Also, Jew Boy, you failed to mention that you dirty Jews were “prime promoters” of World War 1 and 2, and the Horror of the Communist USSR. So go jump in a vat of boiling semen and fuck YOURSELF, you collectivist Talmudic Oy Veying whining cowardly murderous dirty little Jew boy Christ Killing robotic scum.

      Here’s a big “Seig Heil!” from me to you, “Craig,” you filthy lying Jew.

    33. jules j. jewels Says:

      Lots of jewcy information on libertarian communism.
      I’ve been radical since the sixties- that quote, “groups don’t exist”- takes the kyke. Abstraction without regard to evidence.

      http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/Embassy/8970/

      http://www.google.com/search?q=libertarian+communism&hl=en&safe=off&start=0&sa=N

    34. Marwinsing Says:

      On the South Africa situation.

      Let’s not get all knotted here okay – I KNOW what I’m talking about – been living here forty-seven years with these primates and they’re a cakewalk.

      Our biggest worries are the white race-traitors. The niggers are a walkover (well for this nut-head anyway). Yeah sure, Night of the Long Knives, Uhuru, White Genocide, a-blah-blah-blah-blah a-sob-a-sob-a-sob (doll gimme me a Kleenex) please!

      Pah!

      I don’t give rat’s arse for this nonsense. It’s hogwash. Tripe. I’ve been attacked a good few times in my day by hordes of these Afro-vervet-monkeys, only to shake ’em off-a me back (and sent a couple of them off-a to the BIG SLEEP too – remember Angola? – a kike called Kissinger?) – BUT – it’s the white traitors… the poor, pathetic liberal excuses for white trash, that sell you out over here. Ask me I know – the libby wiggers HATE me here *LOL*

      We (scattered) neo-nazis here are groundworking – and doing a pretty damn fine job of it too if I may say so.

      On the white genocide thing – yes it’s true whites are dying like flies here; yes it’s true these black bipedic excuses for humans are wreaking havoc here; and yes it’s true 20% of the white population have fleed like headless chicklets from a hyena-infested chicken-coop since ANC-regime mob-rule circa 1994 – BUT – these same sorry Jesus freak-brainwashed albino cowards would have done the same if a nigger sneazed in a Swiss park/boulevard anyway so…

      …the moral of this story is…

      …are YOU gonna run when YOU become a minority in your country? – white man? Because if you do – then I don’t want to know you!

      Because then you’re a FAKE white man in my eyes.

      True white men DON’T run (unless they ABSOLUTELY have no choice) they stay and FIGHT for what is THEIRS.

      Like this nut-head.

    35. New America Says:

      in reply to Marwinsing:

      you wrote:
      On the South Africa situation.

      Let’s not get all knotted here okay – I KNOW what I’m talking about – been living here forty-seven years with these primates and they’re a cakewalk.

      Our biggest worries are the white race-traitors. The niggers are a walkover (well for this nut-head anyway). Yeah sure, Night of the Long Knives, Uhuru, White Genocide, a-blah-blah-blah-blah a-sob-a-sob-a-sob (doll gimme me a Kleenex) please!

      Pah!

      I don’t give rat’s arse for this nonsense. It’s hogwash. Tripe. I’ve been attacked a good few times in my day by hordes of these Afro-vervet-monkeys, only to shake ‘em off-a me back (and sent a couple of them off-a to the BIG SLEEP too – remember Angola? – a kike called Kissinger?) – BUT – it’s the white traitors… the poor, pathetic liberal excuses for white trash, that sell you out over here. Ask me I know – the libby wiggers HATE me here *LOL*

      We (scattered) neo-nazis here are groundworking – and doing a pretty damn fine job of it too if I may say so.

      On the white genocide thing – yes it’s true whites are dying like flies here; yes it’s true these black bipedic excuses for humans are wreaking havoc here; and yes it’s true 20% of the white population have fleed like headless chicklets from a hyena-infested chicken-coop since ANC-regime mob-rule circa 1994 – BUT – these same sorry Jesus freak-brainwashed albino cowards would have done the same if a nigger sneazed in a Swiss park/boulevard anyway so…

      …the moral of this story is…

      …are YOU gonna run when YOU become a minority in your country? – white man? Because if you do – then I don’t want to know you!

      Because then you’re a FAKE white man in my eyes.

      True white men DON’T run (unless they ABSOLUTELY have no choice) they stay and FIGHT for what is THEIRS.

      Like this nut-head.

      in reply:
      Have you seem http://southafricasucks.blogspot.com?

      Think the dialog underway over there is on the money?

      I do.

      I am fascinated at how the White RACE has become gelded, and the ease with which this seems to have been done. If you’ve read my comments on Cathy Buckle’s situation, you know that I see a perversion – literally, an INVERSION – of the Mindset that we had when WE ran the damn world!

      And a MUCH better world it was, I might add! ;)

      I see this in microcosm every damn day, and I am fighting – desperately – to get my nephews moving forward in Judo courses, while they do not watch the television, ever.

      It’s a start.

      Someone noted that South Africa was doing quite well, and then, widespread commercial television became available. Apparently, this was the tool that shape-shifted their Reality.

      Hence, as I understand it, Cathy Buckle was – and still seems to be – one of the most ardent supporters of the jungle savages who are THIS CLOSE to “dispossessing her…”

      What happened to us?

      What happened to WHITE People?

      Actually, it’s pretty simple.

      We accepted the terms and definitions given to us by our RACIAL Enemy, the demonic Goddamn JEWS.

      We allowed THEIR words to control the newspapers, the magazines, and THEIR pictures to control the television – the First Virtual Reality, and the Electronic Babysitter for the Children of the Sixties, and their posterity.

      Tom Metzger did a masterful commentary back on 2 April 07, where he noted the problem we face in America is not the Mexicans, or the crackhead niggers, or even the goddamn demonic JEWS.

      No.

      All of these are SYMPTOMS, and they are parasites, doing what parasites do. (Of course, this does not mean we should not vigorously resist the efforts of these parasites at all points, by any means necessary.)

      They are the SYMPTOM that WE have failed in our RACIAL Duty to defend the RACE, and the Institutions that support the RACE in the furtherance of its pursuit of its unique Destiny.

      Let me repeat that, and take your excellent comment to heart.

      The problem, in Zimbabwe (and soon, in South Africa – Mandela is eighty, I think) – is NOT the proliferation of the crackhead niggers.

      The problem, in microcosm, is… Cathy Buckle.

      The problem is people who have accepted values that are the inversion – the EXACT opposite – of the values that made our RACE the greatest RACE in the history of the planet.

      In short, WE LET THIS HAPPEN TO US!

      Unknowingly unwillingly, we adopted the values of assigned to us by our RACIAL Enemies, the demonic JEWS, and it is our RACIAL Duty to our posterity to replace their poison with the sources of our power.

      The irony is this: Bob Whitaker has said, in effect, that JEWISH control over our RACE is EXACTLY as strong as we allow it. In its purest essence, it is the weight of a thought, and has, at most, the width and depth of the phosphor molecules on our television screen.

      This demonic force can be easily neutralized, and replaced with the sources of RACIAL Greatness, IF WE SO CHOOSE.

      This is the greatest battle in the history of the world.

      This is why the demonic Goddamn JEWS are fighting so hard to control SPEECH – the tool we use to Awaken one another – in all of its manifestations, but particularly in the public fool system of mass indoctrination.

      It take a lot of effort to shift the Mind around to the Truth about RACE, but, when you do, the full magnitude of what you are up against, while outwardly powerful, is seen as a pale reflection of what YOU can do.

      Remember, the power of the demonic Goddamn JEWS, and their attack animals, the Mixed Races and the crackhead niggers, is nothing more than the power that WE gave them.

      The demonic JEWS then created Institutions to insure that the power they held was retained, while using their control of our Institutions to insure that we were ever more divided, and thus, ever easily conquered.

      We must do SOMETHING about that.

      While we can.

      A very useful way to actually DO SOMETHING is to send money to Alex Linder, whose address is at the top and bottom of your screen, each and every month.

      That’s the First Step.

      New America

      An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

    36. Lamont Says:

      Someone noted that South Africa was doing quite well, and then, widespread commercial television became available. Apparently, this was the tool that shape-shifted their Reality.

      The jews had to operate behind the scenes until the 1970s, the decade the generation raised on television started voting. In just twenty years the boob tube destroyed white racial consciousness.

      Any future white republic must forbid alien ownership of the mass media. Even expelling the jews is not enough since they will try to buy up media companies as the alien jews bought control of Sony in Japan, a far more racist country than the United States ever was.

      Once the alien ownership laws are passed any company found to be fronting for alien jews should suffer confiscation of all assets and the race traitors fronting for the jews should be executed.

    37. New America Says:

      I note that the demonic damn JEWS have ownership laws of all Israeli media that absolutely forbid non-Israeli ownership; an excellent idea for their race, and an excellent idea for our RACE.

      Lamont wrote:
      *snip* *end snip*
      Once the alien ownership laws are passed any company found to be fronting for alien jews should suffer confiscation of all assets and the race traitors fronting for the jews should be executed.

      in reply:
      I LIKE that!

      I especially like this part:

      “…and the race traitors fronting for the jews should be executed.”

      RACE TRAITORS!

      That’s an Idea that will develop as we move forward, and rightfully so.

      Frankly, I suspect Lamont’s position is the MODERATE position.

      ;)

      If memory serves, Lamont’s position became the state of affairs in the Northwest Republic described in Harold Covington’s excellent Northwest Trilogy.

      Our Enemies Deserve No More, and Our Children Deserve No Less.

      New America

      An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!