Libertarianism Shrugged
My friend Dave Weigel has a revealing post at Reason’s “Hit & Run” blog about Ron Paul’s long-overdue endorsement of Chuck Baldwin. Weigel refers the scornful commentators at “Hit & Run” to some “unfiltered Chuck” detailing his opposition to the North American Union, multiculturalism, and abortion. In a second post, he quotes Chuck as stating,
Weigel fears that all this provides ample grounds for the “Kirchiking” of the candidate of the Revolution.
Of course, Barack Obama has also spoken about how the president should use the bully pulpit of the presidency to condemn the decline of the culture. In June 2008 he stated, “I am not someone who believes in censorship, but I think there’s nothing wrong with speaking out against things that are teaching our kids the wrong lessons.”
A casual glance at what passes on prime time television or the news reports about female teachers sexually assaulting students suggest that Obama and Baldwin are not completely out of their minds to urge restraint. And the fact that Baldwin spelled Britney Spears’s name wrong makes this non-Christian even more eager to vote for Pastor Chuck.
What is most revealing about Weigel’s post is its gratuitous marginalization of those advocating for traditional culture, including many libertarians. Baldwin calls for no censorship in this excerpt, nor in the larger column of which it is a part. In fact, he’s not calling for any policies at all except maintaining the current age of consent. It is simply a call for restraint–and yet this is what Weigel believes is an unacceptable passage that will destroy Baldwin.
Millions of parents around the country would disagree.
Weigel’s point is also wrong. Even if we should care that leftists at The New Republic are disappointed, Barr also seems a bit more likely to be Kirchiked than Baldwin. Barr spoke at a conference of the Council of Conservative Citizens in 1998, and then frantically retreated when he received criticism, claiming he had no idea what the group was about. His defense was actually semi-plausible, but that would certainly not stop the criticism. He defended National Alliance member Chester Doles, in his professional capacity of a lawyer, true, but not something that would stop a dedicated smear artist. Barr also championed unfashionable causes in Congress: He introduced the Defense of Marriage Act and tried to ban Wicca in the military, and reopen an investigation on Waco.
However, Barr is not getting the point and stutter treatment because he tacked sharply to the cultural left in order to get the Libertarian nomination.
He has a weak immigration policy, angrily denounced alleged hordes of racists supporting his campaign, has flip flopped on drug legalization and gay marriage, and champions the left-wing of the Paul movement.
Libertarianism has historically been placed on the right because it is a movement of resistance by a traditional society against the encroachments of the left-wing managerial state forcing egalitarianism, secularization, and social control down the throats of an unwilling populace. In practical terms, it was right-wing populist, supporting the closing of public schools (even if it was in response to desegregation), opposing the Civil Rights Act, and advocating abolishing the welfare state that the Left demands as an act of racial justice.
For those of us that have grown up after the New Left, however, the traditional society no longer exists. And in the absence of any culture worth defending, conservative institutions, and real, existing self-governance by small communities, much of modern libertarianism is essentially a series of creative rationales for why the latest leftist victory is actually a triumph for the Right, or why the latest encroachment by the multicultural state is actually an expansion of freedom. Hence, many of Paul’s young acolytes, rather than become the hardcore of right-wing resistance, might actually become a force against conservatism by criticizing the neocons from the left.
Of course, without the rejection of multiculturalism and mass immigration, there is a greater chance that Barack Obama will oppose affirmative action or that Nick Gillepsie will get a decent haircut than the federal budget will be cut 1%. By diverting people who are angry at the system into pointless debates about the nature of abstract rights, libertarianism becomes a comfortable safety valve for the existing system and reinforcement to cultural leftists, rather than fuel for the populist anti-system and overtly right-wing rebellion we so desperately need.
Paul’s movement threatens to fulfill Tucker Carlson’s characterization of how most leftist actually view him—as an eccentric aberration that they can agree with on the war and drugs and ignore on other issues without cost.
Obviously, Paul could not endorse John McCain, with his calls for amnesty, war without end, and a “national greatness” conservatism that is designed to destroy the actually existing American nation. But the split between the two factions of his movement made it impossible for him to endorse either Barr or Baldwin. While any “Left/Right” coalition movement is ultimately doomed to fail for reasons I described in my last article, one could at least try to form a tactical alliance to dismantle the two party system and the bipartisan collaboration on issues like the Federal Reserve. Though perhaps impossible, this attempt is at least justifiable, if only to provide some breathing room for emergence of the real Right, for a real effort to change the country’s financial system—for any real alternative of any kind.
At the same time, the Campaign for Liberty and Ron Paul’s Rally for the Republic were designed to highlight their continuing relevance within the Republican Party. The Campaign for Liberty only endorses people who aren’t running against sitting Republicans and isn’t funding anyone. This strategic schizophrenia is a weakness, but a forgivable one. In the absence of any chance of starting a new party, it could be argued that there has to be some kind of a presence within the major parties in case there is an opening for people like BJ Lawson or Bob Conley. At the same time, the third party threat keeps these voters from being taken for granted. The real issue is whether the Campaign for Liberty can to link all these distinct subcultures.
Paul should not have waited until September to make his endorsement. That said, Paul himself is a product of the paleoconservative and paleolibertarian Right and most of his following was not. His long-term political strategy is incoherent and incompetently executed, but at the same time, short of staying in the race himself, there is nothing he could have done that would have pleased everyone. By forcing Barr to definitively break with Paul, resisting any surrender to the GOP, and endorsing Baldwin, Paul may have clearly defined his legacy as a revitalized right-wing populist movement, rather than one of harmless “liberaltarians.”
Perhaps, the best thing Ron Paul could have done for his 1.2 million voters was wait until September to make an endorsement, endorse four third party candidates, then change his mind and endorse Chuck Baldwin.
Comments
Bob Barr when confronted by the media about his talk at the CofCC:
“Yes, it is true that I spoke before the Council of Conservative Citizens. But had I known they had any connection to racists I would never have spoken to them.”
Joe Sobran’s column the same week:
“Yes, it is true that I spoke before the Council of Conservative Citizens. But had I known they had any connection to Republicans I would never have spoken to them.”
And, as Sam Francis told me, Barr never returned his check to the CofCC despite telling reporters he would do so.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Perhaps, the best thing Ron Paul could have done for his 1.2 million voters was wait until September to make an endorsement, endorse four third party candidates, then change his mind and endorse Chuck Baldwin.”
Huh? Is this sarcastic? You’re not contradicting the previous paragraph?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“female teachers sexually assaulting students”! You must be joking. Where were these goddesses when I was 15? In Mediterranean society, it was long the custom that an older women would deflower a teen boy - it was a rite of passage. A 15 year-old kid lucky enough to score with a pretty 25-30 year-old math teacher is not “assaulted.” Using such language is the right-wing equivalent of leftists claiming a nude painting creates a “hostile work environment.” Men and women are different. Shed the Victorianism - There is more than one way to be “traditionalist.” I’ll take Rome.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think a fair deal of Ron Paul supports were the left-libertarian “libertines.” However, I don’t think it is fair to say that Paul’s youth constituency was made primarily of this strand. I had noticed last year a surprising amount of the right-libertarians joining the Paul campaign. In fact, most of the Paul supporters I worked with could be classified as right-libertarians or traditionalists. I think the nature of his message was enough to turn off the pro-abortion, pro-multiculturalism “libertarians” from the start.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Roho, just to let you know: Halloween is NOT a “pagan holiday”. It’s the day Christians venerate All Saints, known and unknown.
Just because the pagans pervert it doesn’t make the holiday itself “pagan”.
As for Baldwin, the man’s a heretic, but the best candidate for President; I’d vote for the man, that is, if I were the voting type…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Baldwin calls for no censorship in this excerpt, nor in the larger column of which it is a part.
Weigel is absolutely right (from his “liberaltarian” point of view) to complain about Baldwin’s politics, but the issue is a lot more basic than indicated here.
Whether Baldwin calls for censorship is mostly irrelevant. The US Constitution, properly interpreted, allows for unlimited government censorship at the state and local levels. Enforcement of the US Constitution would almost certainly lead to more government censorship of speech, television, etc., which most libertarians, even the Ron Paul types, presumably would oppose. This has nothing at all to do with Baldwin’s personal opinions on “Brittany” Spears.
Libertarianism has historically been placed on the right because it is a movement of resistance by a traditional society against the encroachments of the left-wing managerial state...
I don’t think that’s correct. Traditional liberalism started out on the Left, of course, because (I’m not talking about the seating arrangement of some French representatives) it was for equality against hierarchy. Later, traditional liberalism “moved” to the Right because it was against equality, relative to socialism. Of course liberalism opposed managerial states both to the Left (Bolshevik) and to the Right (fascist).
All this happened before libertarianism, as opposed to traditional liberalism, was any movement at all to speak of. The table was already set before libertarianism entered the room.
...Tucker Carlson’s characterization...
...is exactly right. It’s an accurate description of the Ron Paul movement: an adolescent party which will finally evaporate as soon as the Iraq War ceases to be big news, if not sooner.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think the campaign did the best it could.
The best strategy for the CP or any reform movement would be to do what Dr. Paul did, be a strict constitutionalist (nowhere does it mention abortion, drugs, decency or anything else) while making sure you communicate that your own opinions are basically socially conservative, at least on abortion and drugs. As a pastor, for Baldwin this is obvious anyway, he doesn’t need to say it.
This non-position position on the culture war threatened the establishment’s trump card - their only card actually.
That’s why I think Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin is a bit disappointing – Baldwin is certainly the best there is but young people who don’t have conservative, talkative parents WILL NOT VOTE that far right. They just won’t.
Many many people are just desperate for some kind of adherence to the Constitution. The CP has to use its brain and ditch the bible-babble, sorry, but this is an EMERGENCY. The Constitution strictly adhered to gives plenty of room for social conservative victories but if it is permanently ignored they lose everything. They still seem to think they can turn back the clock and ‘win the culture war’. They clearly need to get out more.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Baldwin calls for no censorship in this excerpt, nor in the larger column of which it is a part.” - from the article
Then Baldwin is a coward and lacks the courage of his convictions; or, rather, he has the wrong convictions, being that libertarianism is not muscular enough to re-instill virtue.
There once were censorship laws against portrayal of sexual licence and miscegenation.
Libertarianism is a retreat and a surrender.
C’mon, paleos, let’s keep it real.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The “Ron Paul Revolution” is a joke. There is nothing “revolutionary” about it.
We are faced with the genetic and cultural annihilation of the White race. This is war.
Paleos will whine all day about the degenerating effects of “empowering” ("You go girl!” LOL!) the rabble yet at the end of the day will not actually do anything about it.
Those of laud authority must have the courage to wield it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“The CP has to use its brain and ditch the bible-babble, sorry, but this is an EMERGENCY.”
That’s right. We don’t need anyone babbling about the WORD OF GOD. Better they focus on a flawed document written by man.
The Baldwin endorsement has really caused the militant secularist and anti-Christians to come out of the woodwork. I say good riddance.
An America that returned to the Faith would be much freer and a much better place to live even if we scrapped the Constitution than would an apostate and amoral America that was following every letter of the Constitution. Not that the two are unrelated. Constitutional government would quickly come crashing down absent Christianity and virtue.
What is conservative about trashing the Faith that molded this country and also just so happens to have the virtue of being TRUE? Opposition to the Faith is the very essence of liberalism. Although I’m not sure a lot of the commenters here consider themselves conservatives.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“The Baldwin endorsement has really caused the militant secularist and anti-Christians to come out of the woodwork. I say good riddance.”
You nailed it, Red! How sad that supposedly tolerant libertarians are so intolerant of people who are deeply religious.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Libertarianism Shrugged”?
I’d say that libertarianism is dead!
The “libertines” don’t want laws regulating morality. The rest of us see such laws as protections against drug dealers and pronographers (especially if we have children). I don’t think that any American wants to return to the days of drug and food non-regulation (note: milk/baby formula deaths in China). Given the facts of the current wall street meltkdown; most Americans want regulation of financial instruments. Libertariansim is dead!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Cheers to Sebastian. “Sexual assault” implies the use or threat of violence to compel the submission of a victim or the penetration and/or molestation of prepubertal children too young to consent in a meaningful and comprehending sense. The young men in such affairs are not “victims” but willing and knowing actors who enjoy the sex more than their definitional “assailants.” Unless one believes they have the mentality of biological children, the sex is consensual. Moreover, they are often the aggressors, in some cases even raping and/or molesting their teachers.
At least he doesn’t join “Crazy Joe” Farah and WND in decrying the “sexpidemic” of women teachers “raping” male students. As Diana Trilling wrote long ago, “The male can rape the female, the female cannot rape the male.” Her point is that rape signifies not only violence or threats of same but also the penetration of the victim by the assailant. And with female victims, penetration involves impregnation. For obvious anatomical reasons, women can’t rape anyone in the pure and literal sense of that word. Thus even to describe such affairs as “statutory rape” is objectively inaccurate and thus absurd. As John Derbyshire observed, equating such liaisons to adult men penetrating and often impregnating underage adolescent girls is “sex equality dogma taken to lunatic extremes.”
Sebastian is wrong, however, when he writes of “the right-wing equivalent to...” Right-wingers and “conservatives” who use words like “rape” and “sexual assault” to define acts of consensual sex between women and young men under age 18 are appropriating the ideological terminology of feminists, progressive CSA victimologists, and left-wing “masculists.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sebastian and Michael K.,
Whether or not the young man wants to engage in sex with a teacher or not; her position as an educator and one responsible for the welfare of the students places her in a situation of power.
IMO..."the book” should be thrown at her as much as any man who choses to engage in sexual relations with female (or male) students. I am totally in favor of laws that enlist age as a condition of consent. People who can not control their impulses have no place near our children.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
There once were censorship laws against portrayal of sexual licence and miscegenation.
At the federal level? I think it was more likely that States and municipalities had such laws. Surely paleocons haven’t given up on the principle of subsidiarity?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Furthermore, the days are gone when we could depend on mothers and fathers to jealously guard the purity of their own daughters. Today, it seems fashionable for girls to dress and behave like prostitutes.”
is this a muslim forum now? wasalam
“ the traditional society no longer exists.”
it never did. seriously, are you offended by “the canterbury tales”? men and women have always engaged in excess and always will.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Chuck Baldwin may or may not be the real deal. But you all don’t quite understand the later hour here. You’re still rearranging deck-chairs. I know it’s difficult to swallow you are on the Titanic once it has sailed and there’s no getting off of it. You somehow fail to grasp sufficiently the problem now of the ‘federal’ reserve. No I mean but really. And not what’s going to happen to you if they don’t get their hands on $700 Billion but rather what’s going to happen to you, if they do.
Congress NEEDS right now to realize or remember the ‘Federal’ Reserve is NOT federal - (feral, maybe especially right now, but not federal.) Cancel the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and if Congress wants to bolster OUR (and Congress’s) economy use the $700 Billion to start their OWN Actual federal bank, and stop playing into the filthy hands of the greedy shadow Government known as the Federal Reserve as it currently IS. Who do they think they’re kidding. This ambiguity simply allows ‘them’ to have it both ways at the expense of actual Americans and at the *expense of our elected officials.
Globalism, members of CONGRESS… read my lips has ALREADY died of thin air, corruption, greed and it’s own *impossibility. Congress - Stop sacrificing the possible, on the altar of the impossible. If you FEED the beast this new $700 Billion, since they *can’t go global with it, the beast will only turn around and devour THEM/you (our government) and US *actual Americans. That’s the only place they now can find new blood. Do you understand this-?-[MORONS.]
Start the REAL, the Actual Bank of the United States, idiots - that’s what a government IS, and does.
That’s what is Constitutional - otherwise give the beast the $700 Billion - we’re all done for. Get it?
Why does EVERYONE else in the World UNDERSTAND this, except the American govt. Answer: the beast’s MEDIA, kids has brainwashed you - that’s the next thing to get into… break up the media. Idiots! Please wake up - you’ve got your eyes closed in the dark.
You fellows aren’t bad folks at this site...admirable, informed, brilliant etc., except you don’t yet realized that you are still too ideological, since the affluence of the past allowed you to be that. Fine. But the affluence is about to go big time, if congress gives its shadow government the money they now want.
If not Congress will actually save the day - and you guys will be able to afford to continute to be as idological and you want to be. Great! (Mark my words.) Iceberg = $700 Billion given to federal reserve as it is right now.
Slowing down, and correcting course (even using $700 Billion to start an Actual United States Bank) = you get to Europe safe and sound. And happily continue being ideologues. Cheers!
_________
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I agree. The old joke about libertarians is that they are just Republicans who smoke pot or engage in kinky sex.
We’ve had enough of so-called “libertarians” joining the neo-Marxist left in attacking
religion, family, community and patriotism. “Libertarians” are really Leftists in spirit,
“utopians on the right” as Kevin Phillips referred to them. They share with Marxists the ideal of a completely “free” society---without the equality part I admit---that neo-Marxists
idealize.
What REAL conservatives understand is that capitalism cannot function efficiently without
virtue to restrain human passion---and greed. The most successful capitalists I can think of,
like Henry Ford, George Eastman, Andrew Carnige, and the Hormel Brothers to name a few, endowed their profit motive with virtue that shared their wealth with their workers, making a joke out of Marxist theorty, that all capitaists were “exploiters”...in this sense, attitudes about sexuality and family go hand in hand with moral obligations to the community and those who are less successful then yourself.
As proof we have the modern example of the bailout to instruct us as what are the
consequesnse of “profit” without virtue...the “free market” ideology of self that underpins modern libertarian philosophy inspired the deregulation legislation that has dominated the last 20 years, and the
consequenses are imperial wars of domination abroad, and corruption and greed at home.
And of course, the “free market” solution to this was the bailout, getting the rest of us to
pay for the profits of those without a moral compass, to whom self and profit are the only
measure of social interaction permissable.
We are seeing the consequenses of Ayn Rand’s “philosophy of selfishness” in action. Russell
Kirk knew, as most real conservatives understand, that self interest without virtue is merely
Marxist theory come to life.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Parroting feminist ideologues and left-liberal CSA victimologists, E. Pearl argues that such affairs are inherently coercive and abusive because of the teacher’s “power” and “authority.” But why is her “power” an “aggravating factor” if she doesn’t misuse her power and authority as an instrument of coercion and manipulation, and especially if the young man is the aggressor in their sexual union?
In many if not most states, high school teachers are now punished distinctly or even uniquely for engaging in the same behavior as adult non-teachers. Because of the dogma that the “imbalance of power” between adults and teenage “minors” is exacerbated by the teachers’s power and authority, regardless of the circumstances, women teachers who have love affairs with male students of 16 and 17 are charged with felonies while male criminals and violent gangsters who have abusive relationships with 16- and 17-year-old girls are charged with misdemeanors or not at all. And in some states, high school teachers are now guilty of felonies for having consensual sex with adult students of 18 and 19.
What do mean by “the ‘book’ should be thrown..”? Prison sentences of 5-10 years in a country in which the average time-served for males convicted of violent crimes (aggravated assault, rape, robbery, and homicide) is approximately four years. Mary Letourneau was enslaved for 8-years, far longer than the average time-served for males convicted of murder.
Years of “sex offender treatment,” years of Orwellian post-incarceration supervision, i.e., restrictions on their freedoms and intrusions into their private lives that don’t apply to even the most brutal and vicious male criminals who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense, 20 years to life of “sex offender registration”? After their release from prisons and jails, all such women are now punished as uniquely dangerous criminals for a victimless and mala prohibita offense. To call all of this insane would be an understatement.
If a women teacher cannot “control her impulses,” fire her, revoke her license, expell from the profession. What compelling reason is there to punish her as if she were a rapist or a man who preys on biolgical children.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“By diverting people who are angry at the system into pointless debates about the nature of abstract rights, libertarianism becomes a comfortable safety valve for the existing system and reinforcement to cultural leftists, rather than fuel for the populist anti-system and overtly right-wing rebellion we so desperately need.” - from the article
What we need is a mass racialist-populist movement, hopefully with a armed, para-military wing. The system is not salvagable, time to bring it down.
Nothing goes right until we go White.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
meanwhile, how many paleos have the massive families and stringent morals they prescribe for the rest of us? not too many
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Great answer Michael K. I do wonder if the author of this article can find the time or has the inclination to clarify what he means by “assault.”
As for Esmeralda, well, she appeared in many episodes of The Simpsons always asking “what about the children; will someone think of the children?!!” Like a good LIBERAL, she is prepared to perpetuate every kind of injustice so long as it’s done in the name of “the children.” The road to Hell is paved with legislation enacted to protect the children. Unless I’m with a women, for example, I refrain from even smiling at little kids lest Esmeralda (and there are many such) accuse me of assault and attempted kidnapping or pedophilia. This tense, unhealthy, suspicious atmosphere we have created around kids is the result of this completely perverse view of “power relations,” introduced by the Left, but, like so much else, happily carried forward by the new conservatives. They are as responsible for sexualizing childhood as any Hollywood scumbag.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
http://attackthesystem.com/liberty-and-populism-building-an-effective-resistance-movement-for-north-america/
Libertarianism need not be either state-capitalist/corporatist apologetics or leftist political correctness. Ever heard of Proudhon?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Libertarianism need not be either state-capitalist/corporatist apologetics or leftist political correctness. Ever heard of Proudhon?” - Keith Preston
But in order to pursue libertarianism you need to have the “state-capitalist/corporatist” entity off your back, right?
How to do that exactly if it will not willingly accede to your desire?
Are you prepared to physically resist to achieve your goals? If not you lack the courage of your convictions.
“Like a good LIBERAL, she is prepared to perpetuate every kind of injustice so long as it’s done in the name of “the children.”” - Sebastian
What would you not be willing to do to “secure the existence of our people and a future for White children”? Would you actually have the stones to censor the garbage that comes out of Hollywood? We once did in this country not so long ago. Are you sure you are not the “good LIBERAL”?
Get this through your thick skulls, faileocons: if, at the critical moment, you are not willing or able to take what you want by force (yes, kill for it, sorry if that makes you qeasy) you have nothing to work with.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Michael K. and Sebastian,
I am far from a “Liberal” I am a very conservative Christian who belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. And, I am a retired high school teacher.
I will admit that, most of the time, it is a male teacher who crosses the line (rather than a female). Nowadays, girls, as well as boys often are the sexual aggressor.
When I began teaching, “acceptable” standards of behavior and dress were demanded by colleagues, and school boards. (Our society was much more conservative than in this day and age.) Order and discipline was maintained by the teachers, administration and the community at large.
By the time I retired; my greatest fear was being beaten to a pulp by angry male students as I attempted to maintain order in the classroom; which undermined their status as “leader” Fortunately,
I was able to channel their budding leadership ability in a positive manner. (I was much too old for them to make a pass at me.) Also, I reinforced my status by making personal contact with all the parents (grandparents) of my students...for many years.
Teaching is more than a profession; it is a vocation. Teachers, as people who are entrusted with the education and shaping of society’s future; should be held to a higher standard of behavior than those who do not have this privilege.
”Our life is God’s gift to us. What we do with that life is our gift to God.” --unknown
It was my job as a teacher to help young people attain the education that would allow them to make good use of their God-given gifts.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Esmerelda, I never said you were a “liberal.” Ironically, your experiences as a teacher confirm rather than confute my arguments. Women teachers need to be protected from violent, predatory, and salacious teenage males. With some rare exceptions, teenage males don’t need to be protected from women teachers. In our worst high schools, teenage delinquents, criminals, and barbarians have the real power. Women teachers live in constant fear of these “children” and “young boys” and don’t even have the power and authority to make them sit down and shut up and learn to spell cat. But women teachers who are raped and/or molested by these “children” and “young boys” might end up being charged with “sexual assault” and, if convicted, subjected to months or years in jail or prison and other draconian and Orwellian penalties. I’m refering to actual cases in which this really happened.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Michael K, I understand what you are saying. A woman who is raped/assaulted would have to have physical signs of the attack…
back to the “dark ages”? (Thank God for teacher’s unions in the public schools!) The situation in inner city jr/sr high schools has become untenable for young women. In fact, even the male teachers are assaulted. I am convinced that radical and innovative changes need to occur in inner city public schools to stop the decline.EP
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Obviously you are not a liberal - I said “like a good liberal” you are prepared to incarcerate these 20-30 somethings gals who sleep with cute teenage boys.
I do not dispute your vocation, which I have never shared - I’m a “greedy” Wall Street guy, nor your virtue. Peace.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
We are faced with the genetic and cultural annihilation of the White race. This is war…
and
What we need is a mass racialist-populist movement, hopefully with a armed, para-military wing. The system is not salvagable [sic], time to bring it down.
I am so fed up with people talking about the impending annihilation of the white race. It is a problem with a very simple solution. Separate and procreate. Do as the Orthodox Jews and the Amish have done. Create your own procreative, Christian (since most of you are Christian) white societies that PEACEFULLY hold themselves apart from the mainstream society and put a high premium on procreation. Seriously, who is stopping this?
The Amish double their population every eighteen years. If current trends continue (big if, of course), in 200 years there will be over 200 million Amish in the world.
Whether or not the Amish actually achieve such numbers is beside the point, which is that a subgroup that successfully dissociates itself from the mainstream culture and encourages natural fertility can achieve exponential population growth. It’s not a simple formula. The Amish have been tinkering with it for decades and are only now getting it right - until relatively recently, their high fertility rates were balanced by a high percentage of people leaving the church… Orthodox Jews still have this problem - so there’s a lot of trial and error. But if your race is so damn important to you, give it a shot. At least this way you’ll be addressing the problem of white genetic and cultural annihilation in a way that won’t screw up the lives of everyone else in this country.
Also, it’s pretty much you’re only shot. You are never going to defeat multiculturalism. It is the reigning orthodoxy and it gets stronger every year with the shifting demographics. And I hate to break it to you, but most white people just don’t care that much about this sort of thing. They don’t need to be awakened. They just don’t care.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ugh, I screwed up the italics in that post, sorry. First two “quotes” should be in italics, the rest is my own long-winded rant.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Marc: “I am so fed up with people talking about the impending annihilation of the white race. It is a problem with a very simple solution. Separate and procreate.”
Some White Nationalists recommend essentially this strategy of microcommunities, self-sufficiency, gaining local political legitimacy with an eye to ultimately secceding.
“The Amish double their population every eighteen years. If current trends continue (big if, of course), in 200 years there will be over 200 million Amish in the world.”
It is a big if. When it comes to defending their people by force of arms against the predations of non-Whites the Amish are all but useless. What they are good for is breeding large numbers of White people. In the dystopian world that lies in store for us if present demographic trends persist (think Haiti, think Rhodesia) the Amish would be slaughtered. From the standpoint of defense of the larger racial body they are free riders.
“And I hate to break it to you, but most white people just don’t care that much about this sort of thing.”
I’m well aware, it is unfortunate and ultimately to their extreme misfortune.
“They don’t need to be awakened.”
From the mouths of babes. They goddamn well do. If our people are to be ruled over by non-Whites they can expect brutalization, enslavement in some form, slow genetic attrition through miscegentation at best and annihilation at worst (think Haiti and Rhodesia).
Our ability to ensure our survival in a hostile world NECESSITATES we have sufficient numbers and cooperation. We need hundreds of millions of us on the same page.
Get this through YOUR head: the only things that can be ultimately guaranteed in this life are those that can be secured, if necessary by force. DO NOT place the lives of you, your family, and your people in the hands of hostiles and savages and hope for the best. I can promise you, you will regret the results.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thank you, “captainchaos”. You are saying what I have been saying for two decades, without much success (including over the past year on this site).
All that matters (to REAL conservatives at this very late date in the collapse of our civilization) ultimately is the survival of the white race, meaning its procreation, the maintenance of its genetic purity, and the perpetuation of white racial demographic dominance in the historic Occidental homelands, including the US. Those who blather about declining Christian morals all the time may be good conservatives overall, but are either too stupid to understand or weak to acknowledge and therefore prioritize the REAL threats to the West, which of course are racial.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ Captainchaos
I can’t believe I’m saying this (I always considered myself a cosmopolitan), but every passing day seems to prove you more right. Vis-a-vis the prospect of non-White governorship, the more I think about it the more it scares me (and I was just in Zambia north of Rhodesia earlier this year, and it was NOT pretty - nor for that matter was the hellpit of South Africa). The upshot? Something definitely must be done.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have often said I would rather be ruled by someone who I disagree with on everything, but would not impose anything than someone whom I agreed with but would impose things.
The difficulty is it requires heroic virtue (as in canonized saints) to not be corrupted by power. The temptation is to remake something - always for the good, the better - by bending the rules which bind the power. But power unleashed will do damage, eventually. It is a deal with the devil.
The problem if you do not think rights come from God is that there is no reason you should defend, much less enforce them instead of breach them. If there will not be any ultimate justice - itself a cardinal virtue - then why not be vicious? All rights come from property rights? Fine, but I then need only show that a complete abstraction is less able to defend itself than a piece of paper (Spooner on the constitution).
God so loved the world, but part of that love is our free will and the will to evil. He does say that he will take care of things and balance things in the end.
Abstractions won’t. Why should I not steal from you if I won’t get caught (or won’t suffer consequences greater than I’ve gained from the theft)?
I thought better of Barr, but last time I checked his Issues page, apparently he is like Obama in that Abortion is “above his pay grade”.
So to close the circle, although I might in the abstract say I would prefer to be ruled by someone who had different opinions on everything other than on limiting government, if he was a slave to his passions, they would eventually override whatever principles limiting his abuse of power.
A godly man will take a high office in humility and worry every moment that like fire, the exercise of authority will overreach and destroy something.
And ungodly man will in high office eventually seek a higher office - that of God himself. For even if he seeks liberty, he will then decide that people who have bound themselves in community in a way he considers slavery are not free to do so and use force to break such communities up. Do we not hail Lincoln for freeing the slaves? If the army wasn’t there to shatter the culture, I suspect except for some formality about wages much would have stayed the same in the south.
A godly man changes mens hearts individually and most often by example. Ron Paul is perhaps the best.
Ungodly men wish to use force and change things by fiat, wrongly assuming men with wrong hearts and heads can live in their imposed utopia.
The problem is that political and moral authority are antithetical. To grasp at one requires alienating the other.
Click to flag this comment as abusive