Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > The Struggle > The Strategy
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old August 26th, 2009 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Jews Subverting Libertarianism: Why Jews Must be Excluded From Any White Organization

[It is an iron law that jews must be excluded from an organization or it will be subverted by them. There is no such thing as a pro-White organization including jews. That is a lie perpetrated by WhINOs bent on strangling our movement in the cradle. Here we see the same WhINO function at work in libertarianism. Although of course libertarianism is distorted individualism, and as such inherently anti-White, its hatred of all government, and the intellectual ability of many of its avatars, makes it at least intellectually threatening to the powers that be. So we Whites can look on and learn many lessons as we see the System try to coopt the libertarian movement in the usual ways: by redefining libertarianism, by buying off writers and leaders.]

The Kochtopus and the Cosmopolitan Libertarian Brigade vs Lew Rockwell
Saturday, January 12, 2008

HUAC is back. The House Un-American Activities Committee is back, and it’s called Cosmopolitan “Libertarianism.”

The round-up of Lew Rockwell continues. I find this post interesting, especially since my extensive blog post is not to be found here. Of course — I’m not taking the standard pc, lynch-mob line, thus I do not get the Reason honor badge. Ahem.

As the Ron Paul attacks and Lew Rockwell smear-o-rama continues, I’m reminded of something I have always spoken about in the past. And it has never been a popular topic. One thing rampant among libertarians is their lack of the ambition gene outside of libertarianism and the web. So many of these people have no real job, no career, and in fact, if they can’t align themselves with some small-time, paid position at some libertarian outfit, they remain unemployed. As such, they will do anything to not make enemies in the movement, and in fact they must win friends in order to write columns and hope for paid gigs. They are low-paid and no-paid libertarians. Their perspective on the real world is warped because they sell their principles for a paycheck or a job. So what does that have to do with anything? They – especially the circle of “full-time” bloggers, writers, and think-tankers – have low opportunity costs to stirring up trouble, and so they stir. Too much time on their hands and all day at the computer means that these people have the time to cruise the ‘Net and fan the flames of incrimination, and even so, they never seem to take the time to produce credible evidence. Most of these people know nothing about the good man they are trying to destroy, yet they join in on the lynching because it keeps them in the good graces of the libertarian social circle in which they all want so badly to belong.

Someone wrote me and said, “Don’t you worry about backlash from the (libertarian) movement for your defense of Rockwell and the Mises Institute?” I haven’t replied to him yet, but, what backlash? What “movement?” I consider myself to be fortunate: I have a great job and a great career. This is my “side” gig. My lifestyle and passion and personal philosophy, yes. My “job,” no. My career has taken over much in my life, but hey, sometimes things change, priorities change, and you make choices. I take my passion for libertarianism very seriously, however, due to my success, I don’t feel I have to follow anyone’s politically-correct bullshit line for one moment. I am very well-employed outside of the libertarian clique that consistently attempts thought control, hence my ability to say whatever the hell I want, and I don’t care what the other bozos think or say about any of it. Being employed far outside of the libertarian/academic inner circle leaves me free to tell the Kochtopus to kiss my well-employed behind.

As far as talking about a “movement,” it is entirely collectivist to say that I am some part of a movement for which I have an obligation to hold up certain standards put forth by the self-elected “leaders” of the movement. The standards, by the way, are upholding the state as virtuous and promoting its collectivist, politically-correct canon. I absolutely refuse to be a part of this democracy-lynching that is taking place here and now.

The Kochtopus. That gigantic and powerful machine that has funded much of the conservative and Beltway Libertarian apapratus. Just look who is number one on its list of organizations funded.

Let me tell you why they (meaning the collective lynch mob) are trying to bring Lew Rockwell down. I started on some of this topic here, but let me delve a little deeper into why they hate Lew Rockwell so much. Because Lew Rockwell, and his Lew Rockwell.com and Mises Institute, represent one of the very last remaining strains of non-Kochtopus libertarianism in existence. The Kochtopus tried to stop the Mises Institute from launching way back in the early 1980s, but with no success. Since then, it’s been a persistent launch of attacks from Cato, its satellites, and its hired hands.

The Kochtopus, along with all of its recipients and players, loves the state. We (and I) have blogged about this time and time again on LewRockwell.com (and here), with the best evidence of all: links to the written words. The Kochtopus, most of all, hates that Rockwell (along with his like-minded writers) recognizes the illegitimacy of the state, and thus the anti-statism from the LRC bunch is loud, persistent, and radical. Include me among them.

The Kochtopus, and thus those tied to Cato, IHS, George Mason, etc., is made up of hired tongues who have to act within certain boundaries, and those boundaries are a reflection of the state’s moral code: the state makes the eradication of racism, homophobia, sexism, anti-Israelism, and all other un-PC “isms” its top priority. The cosmopolitan/Beltway/Centralizing/PC libertarians consistently promote the state, and especially its moral codes. While Lew Rockwell is always and everywhere anti-state, the focus of the anti-Rockwellians is not the state and its effect on individual liberty, but promoting the state’s thought control on racism, homophobia, gay marriage, immigration, and all other pc topics. This has become the new “libertariansim.” Libertarians have become some sick and twisted version of the Gestapo on thought control, motives, and guilt by association.

Not one of these posts that I have seen, that brand Lew with all these nasty tendencies, have produced a shred of evidence: a link, an article, a byline, or otherwise. What it comes down to is this: Lew doesn’t use his website to promote queer marriage, gay this and gay that, Rosa Parks, MLK, or any other “hero” of the politically-correct, libertarian Kochtopus. Instead, he promotes ideas which are against the state and its collectivization of the individual.

So you guessed it – by not consistently promoting the state-approved, pc agenda, one is therefore found guilty of all charges by those who do promote The Agenda. If you don’t beat the drums for, say, gay marriage, that makes you a “homophobe.” And on and on.

Not one of you lying creeps whose blogs and articles I have read can produce a shred of evidence. But because Lew Rockwell does not consistently promote your twisted, pc version of the world, he is branded all things evil. You Libertarians Against Rockwell cannot stand that he doesn’t join you; he stands on his own and fights the state, not your pathetic agenda of racism, diversity, feminism, transgenderism, homophobism, and general fucked-up-ism. And you all promote the state’s agenda because it makes you popular, it makes you “part of the clique,” and it keeps you in the loop of so-called mainstream libertarianism. It gets you all mainstream columns, think tank jobs, fellowships, IHS positions, paid writing positions, backslapping from “prominent” libertarians, and links from Reason, Andrew Sullivan, and Instapundit.

Note this Homophobic-o-Rama on Tom Palmer’s site. So really, tell me, what does it mean to be homophobic? What does that truly define? Someone, anyone, define this for me. If you are a homophobe, does it mean that you are actually “frightened” of men who make their own sexual choices? Does it mean you hate them? If you do, so what? If you have not promoted the use of state coercion/violence against homosexuals, what have you done that is “unlibertarian?” Why is it so important to people to “out” certain people as homophobes? What does this have to do with the core values of libertarianism: decentralization, non-aggression, and freedom from state coercion.

Let’s define what is really meant by “homophobe.” This word has always left me bewildered because it is ess
entially a ‘tag” for those people who do not actively support queer sex; queer marriage; and special, collective rights. The fact that one does not engage or even care about these topics at all (as with Lew) makes one a “homophobe.” I, for one, could care less about these topics unless it involves use of the state against individuals.

The Kochtopus has been out to kill Rothbardian libertariansm (of the plumb-line sort) for a very long time, and this, they think, is their great chance. I have read the excerpts from the Ron Paul newsletters, and I can tell you this: those excerpts making light of immigrants/blacks/etc. are way too snappy and attempt to be way too humorous to have been written by Lew Rockwell. Lew is not a guy who tries to humor people. That is not his comparative advantage. Lew’s only sense of humor is letting other people make him laugh. I do not say this to be demeaning — it is just his nature. He will never be the snappy, impetuous, humorous, quipster of the party. His personality is exactly the opposite. The seriousness of his personality is very obvious in his many writings. He is a warm and kind man who, with all of his success, could be a condescending jerk. Instead he is a very fair, hospitable, mellow, and serious man.

The first time I ever met him in person, over 10 years ago at the Mises Institute, he went out of his way to have Roger Garrison explain free-banking concepts to me (to which I was previously resistant), and he sat me and another student down with David Gordon so we would have the opportunity to try and better understand one of his more difficult lectures we had strained to process. He sat at the dormitory pool with some of us Mises University students, and he told us great stories about the early years of libertarian publishing, think tanks, the LP, etc. There was and never has been anything about him that fits the description that people are trying to pass off right now.

I hesitate to bring this particular issue up because it’s so bonkers, but it’s worth it because it really paints the madman as he deserves. The crazed Tom Palmer has actually taken to calling the Mises Institute a “front for white nationalism.” Isn’t this a case where Palmer’s friends, if he has any, should stop letting him “drive drunk?” Friends don’t let friends paint themselves as insane, or do they in this case? The term “white nationalism” is, by its very definition, using the state’s coercive powers to unite and advance an omnipotent white state. I want Palmer to link to exactly where it was that Lew Rockwell ever wrote something to that effect. Of course, he has not. He cannot. And yet the LAR (Libertarians Against Rockwell) stands there with their heads up their tushes, and they allow this to go on, but they paint Lew Rockwell as the guy who must show the evidence that “he didn’t do it.” No evidence required from the lynch mob, however. Another guy claimed, on his blog, that he went to Mises University and heard Rockwell “making racist comments.” That is an outright lie. Again, no name on the blog, no person, no profile. Just a nameless, faceless, gutless remark from someone who cannot openly put their face and name behind their accusations, let alone the evidence. And the shameless LAR lynch mob is linking to his blog post.

For those of you who know nothing about Rockwell’s supposed role in this newsletter scandal, I pity your pathetic need to be accepted by The Clique and The Kochtopus if you publicly claim to know Rockwell wrote those passages without you having a shred of proof. Back in those times, those types of newsletters typically had *dozens* of ghostwriters floating in and out, and those of you who are older and have been around awhile damn well know that fact. There were surely many people who were involved in producing those many newsletters.

The burden of the newsletter content is on Ron Paul, the man whose name graces the covers, and shame on you scoundrel “libertarians” for automatically drawing the assumption that Lew Rockwell must have, had to be, surely was involved in writing those passages that have you all so horrified. Yet you claim that this man, who has worked so hard – on his own time and dollar – to open peoples’ minds to the more radical aspects of freedom and free markets, is “destroying your movement,” as if this is some juvenile brotherhood of badges, pin pricks, sworn statements, and membership cards.

http://karendecoster.com/the-kochtop...-rockwell.html
 
Old August 26th, 2009 #2
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

P.C. libertarianism
and the Jewish taboo

By HENRY GALLAGHER FIELDS



American libertarians were once freedom-loving, truth-loving iconoclasts who took pleasure in spurning the shibboleths of Establishment pundits and intellectuals. No dogma was deemed too sacred to be safe from their skepticism, and every alleged truth was subject to examination by free minds reveling in free inquiry. They were totally outside the mainstream, and they relished that position: one thinks of giants such as Frank Chodorov, Albert J. Nock, Murray N. Rothbard, and Roy A. Childs, Jr., standing lonely but unafraid.

But libertarians today, with some honorable exceptions, are a changed breed. They shy away from the ever-multiplying taboo issues, if they do not actually celebrate the reigning intellectual orthodoxy. Libertarian principles are noticeable chiefly by their absence.

To illustrate the decline, let's look at a new star in the libertarian literary firmament: Ilana Mercer. A self-styled "wandering Jew," Miss Mercer was born in South Africa, the daughter of an anti-apartheid rabbi who fled to Israel, where she grew up. Having lived in Canada for a time, Miss Mercer is now ensconced in the United States, where she has moved to the fore among what passes as the libertarian punditry. Meanwhile, the punditocracy (a useful neologism) that accords respectful recognition to Miss Mercer carefully ignores everything that The Last Ditch produces, as our esteemed chief Mr. Strakon has noted. (Since TLD articles do attract fan support and links from conservatives, liberals, lefties, American Indians, Arabs, inhabitants of "Old Europe," Eastern Europeans, Africans, Turks, and so on, it would not seem that all of our writings are meritless, especially considering what passes for informative prose in the libertarian mainstream.)

It can't be denied that Miss Mercer has taken a few good positions that manage to elude many libertarians. Significantly, she has stood against the American imperial war on Iraq, unlike lunatic Randroids who want to nuke the Arabs. (You may acquit the Official Objectivists on a technicality if you're so inclined, since they refuse to recognize themselves as libertarians.) But despite her antiwar sentiments, Miss Mercer has more than a soft spot for her homeland, by which I do not mean South Africa.

At some point during her peregrinations she conjured up the fantasy that libertarians "loathe" Israel and that she must leap to the defense of that perpetually victimized state. To illustrate the existence of a vast libertarian anti-Israeli groundswell, Miss Mercer manages to come up with a grand total of three individual examples — Sheldon Richman, Justin Raimondo, and Stephen P. Halbrook. The Halbrook article she cites comes from 1981, and Halbrook happens to be a Canadian, which inconvenient tidbits underscore the fact that anti-Israel feeling is hardly burgeoning among American libertarians. While Miss Mercer probably could have added to her census of sinners by pointing out a few anti-Zionist libertarian souls from the West Bank and Gaza, the bulk of American libertarians would require megadose testosterone injections before ever daring to mentally entertain, much less discuss publicly, such a taboo idea.

Miss Mercer's adoring assessment of the Jewish state doesn't gibe too well with the cardinal tenets of the libertarian canon. She holds to a historical view that Jews deserve the land of Israel, and she doesn't see much wrong with Israel's expropriating Palestinian private property and expelling Palestinian people, crimes that are still being committed, by the way. Presumably, in her mind the "collective rights" of the Jewish people trump individual rights, a position that harks back to the days a hundred years ago when "libertarian" often referred to communists of a somewhat unorthodox kidney. In any case, the notion is alien to modern libertarianism insofar as that body of thought proceeds from individualist premises.

While referring to the former white-ruled South Africa as fascistic, Miss Mercer insists that the Jewish state should be free to resist contamination by the multiculturalist contagion that an influx of Palestinians would bring. She lauds Ariel Sharon's new Israeli "security" wall (which would rightly be called an incarceration wall), finding nothing wrong with the fact that it is being built on Palestinian property, restricts the Palestinians to economically non-viable areas, and leaves more than half of the West Bank and all the water resources in Israeli hands! To Miss Mercer, the fact that all Palestinians hate Israel because of what it has done to them only demonstrates their innate savagery. Apparently we are to believe that rational, freedom-loving Palestinians, if such chimeras could exist, would joyously accept their Israeli overlords and give thanks to Uncle Ariel for letting them pace back and forth in the postage-stamp areas still left to them and sip a cup of dirty water when that precious commodity became available. Rothbard, whom Miss Mercer identifies as one of her philosophical mentors, saw the Revolutionary War as one of the few justified wars fought by the American people; but the oppression of the American colonists by the British Empire was nugatory compared to the suffering inflicted on the Palestinian people by Israel for more than half a century.

While principled libertarians will find nothing to admire in the Israeli state and much to abhor, it must be acknowledged that Israel is no worse than many of its national counterparts. But American libertarians must take special notice of the crimes of Israel because that state is supported by the American government and because it is immune from criticism, largely thanks to its American backers, who can make things very difficult for those who dare to differ. As Raimondo bluntly put it in his response to Miss Mercer's article:

It isn't Israel we loathe, it's Israel's American amen corner, typified by La Mercer. Why, we just love Israel, and would love it even more if only its leaders and supporters would commit war crimes on their own dime, without American aid and without continually hectoring us for more. Look, nobody really cares about Israel, per se: the problem is the effect that nation's knee-jerk supporters have on the American political process and the way their shrill cries distort and degrade the national debate on U.S. policy in the Middle East.

As many observers both at TLD and elsewhere have pointed out, this whole war on Iraq was spearheaded by Zionist neocons. Now, it strains credulity to believe that Miss Mercer, who has stood against the war, can be unaware of that. Offhand there is only one person of significance I can think of who is honestly oblivious to what has taken place, and it's not Miss Mercer. Her intellectual capacity appears infinitely superior to that of the nincompoopish pawn in the White House.

As is the usual modus operandi for rabid champions of Israel, Miss Mercer resorts to the "anti-Semitic" tar brush to stigmatize those who dare criticize that state, stooping so low as to indirectly smear Richman as a "Holocaust denier" because the Journal of Historical Review also criticizes Israel. By way of this guilt-by-viewpoint approach, Richman could be called a communist because communists also criticize Israel; or for that matter, he could be called an Israeli historian because Israeli historians such as Tom Segev have painted a rather negative picture of Israel's actions toward the Palestinians.

***

Fearing not, let's touch on that ultimate taboo: questioning the established accounts of the Jewish Holocaust of the 1940s. For Miss Mercer and other votaries of Establishment intellectual orthodoxy, "Holocaust denial" represents a radical evil. The term "Holocaust denier" itself is Establishment-invented and Establishment-approved, and it is not what the actual people so diagnosed would call themselves. Like "racism," "sexism," "homophobism," and other current demon-indictments, the charge of "Holocaust denial" is a grindingly tendentious blunt instrument. It is an un-unpackable intellectual package deal, a contradictory accusation of moral evil and mental disorder. It has about it the whiff of the psychiatric clinic: the Soviet psychiatric clinic, that is. It is designed to stop all debate in its tracks. It is designed to abruptly and definitively curtail thinking.

The Establishment advertises the Holocaust as the greatest evil in human history. The established media cite it incessantly and produce more programs on it every year. Official accounts of the Holocaust receive state support for promotion in schools and various museums. And questioning the story is absolutely verboten. But we may wonder why debate on the Holocaust has become impermissible — why people are incarcerated in "free" Western democracies for doubting that mass killings in gas chambers occurred six decades ago — why we see an effort to ban Internet sites that deal with the issue. Holocaustians claim that such punishment is necessary to protect truth and stop "hate." But isn't that completely contrary to libertarian concepts of freedom? Isn't it completely contrary to the enterprise of reason and science, which calls for freedom of inquiry and depends on it absolutely? Instead of punishing unbelievers, wouldn't it be better to just bring forth the documentary and physical evidence proving that millions of Jews perished in German death camps?

But then we learn that the documents don't exist, because Hitler communicated by word of mouth. And that the Nazis totally destroyed all the physical evidence of the millions of bodies, the trenches where the bodies were buried, the machinery used in the killing process, and so on. As the Holocaust expert Jan van Pelt pointed out in the Irving/Lipstadt trial, the Nazis even went so far as to painstakingly fill in the holes in the gas-chamber roof at Auschwitz, in the face of the onrushing Red Army.

And yet we still have an enormous number of Jewish Holocaust survivors — hundreds of thousands in the United States alone — who can attest to the wholesale extermination of the Jewish people. So many lucky survivors, including many who were children in the death camps and had no value as slave laborers. Very many survivors of an industrial death machine, especially considering that other hundreds of thousands who survived must have died peacefully in American nursing homes during the long decades since 1945 ... Well, at this point one may pause for reflection: Could it be that, from the standpoint of those with a vested interest in promoting the Holocaust, there is a definite reason that free discussion must be suppressed?

One would think libertarians would have some difficulties with the way the Holocaust is presented and that they would insist on getting to the bottom of the matter. Since the official accounts can't be questioned in the mainstream, small groups such as the Institute for Historical Review are all that exist. Does that mean that everything IHR says is correct? Obviously not. But it is only when the question of the Holocaust can be freely investigated that one can hope to learn the truth about it. Even if one disagrees with the specific historical analyses provided by IHR, it seems hard for a lover of freedom and truth to reject IHR's position that the issue of the Holocaust should be investigated in a spirit of free inquiry and with no governmental impediments or intimidation. In short, let's treat the Holocaust as we would any other issue. This should be a no-brainer for everyone, and for libertarians especially — and that very fact is probably why a dispassionate analysis of the issue is absolutely forbidden.

***

To get back to Miss Mercer, it seems sufficient to describe her simply as a Jewish ethnic nationalist espousing a form of libertarianism that advances her people's interests, as she understands them. Nothing strange about that. Many Jewish leftists and liberals act the exact same way, supporting such things as racial intermarriage, multiculturalism, integration, forced equalization of income, UN supremacy, Third World preferences, and once in a while free speech, but adopting a contrary standard where Jews or Israel are involved. Blood is thicker than ideology. It is the Jewish double standard. One may wish to consult the intrepid Kevin MacDonald for a Darwinian take on the whole phenomenon.

While it may be perfectly understandable for Miss Mercer to espouse her Kosher libertarianism — Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the ideological ancestor of the Likud, held some libertarian ideas while at the same time advocating the dispossession of the inhabitants of Palestine — it's puzzling, at first blush, to see American gentile libertarians accept her version, much less applaud it. I can't help concluding that American libertarians, instead of sticking to principle, are simply refashioning libertarianism to fit in with what is permissible thinking, given the constricting bounds of our increasingly less-free society. What we find today, pretty much, are P.C. libertarians.

Some P.C. libertarians act out of fear — "Hey, I'd lose my job (or wreck my fund-raising) if anyone ever found out I entertained a thought like that." In totalitarian societies, such as the United States and other Western countries have become, perhaps that response, too, is understandable. (I'm being very understanding today.) Few men ever have the courage to be martyrs; few enough even find the true grit to be heroes. If I may be forgiven an historical aside, the scene was a little different in the days when secure middle-class income and respectability weren't immediately at stake. Younger readers may not be aware that in the late '60s and early '70s, when the modern libertarian movement was coming together, libertarians were fairly prominent among those who were skeptical of the established Holocaust story. One figure of note who questioned it (and without being shouted down or slandered by his comrades) was the libertarian historian James J. Martin; but a number of ordinary, obscure libertarians didn't recognize the Holocaust as a sacred cow, either. Those were the days when they were crashing in sleeping bags at crummy apartments and pooling quarters and dimes in order to gas up that rusted VW van: back then, for most feisty young libertarians, "fund-raising" meant something quite different.

In any case, most of today's buttoned-down P.C. libertarians go beyond merely eschewing martyrdom, whether of the career or fund-raising variety. They go beyond eschewing heroism, even. The current climate is scary, to be sure; but, still, it's hardly a heroic, super-manly feat of derring-do to post a little link to an article on the war that doesn't revise the Holocaust but just happens to reside at a site opposed to shouting down Holocaust revisionists. No: the P.C. libertarians seem actually to have internalized society's reigning orthodoxies and taboos. They instinctively know what dogmas to accept without question and what ideas to black out. But, on second thought, even their internalization of orthodoxies and taboos may be understandable, and forgivable, since critical thinking and the pursuit of truth are negative Darwinian survival traits in today's world. Those possessing such traits will ultimately be weeded from the gene pool, and already many are unable to subsist economically at even a semi-decent level of poverty.

Perhaps, then, P.C. libertarianism is a perfectly understandable psychological phenomenon. It allows a man to feel good about being a rebellious champion of freedom while safely conforming to society's enforced dogmas. One is thus free to be an intellectual coward, or a complete non-thinker, and still enjoy self-esteem and brilliant repute as a fearless intellectual.

From the perspective of our rulers, such P.C. libertarians are perfectly harmless and can be left alone. They can even be allowed to flourish, as a false opposition. Today's P.C. libertarians may be nothing like the principled 200-proof libertarian truth-seekers of old. However, adherence to a belief system that is logically incoherent but psychologically comforting is probably all that we can expect of them, as Western civilization sloughs ever deeper into the garbage dump of history.

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/fields_pclib.htm
 
Old August 26th, 2009 #3
notmenomore
Senior Member
 
notmenomore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,174
notmenomore
Default

Two nicely articulated posts. Uncle Adolph understood the phenomenon nigh unto 100 years ago: all meetings of and speeches given by the NSDAP were "juden verbotten".

The jude disrupts, undermines, derails, and obfuscates. Such is its nature. Involving the jew, or even affording it entre, is tantamount to the destruction of any organization not entirely subordinate to the jew agenda. Such has it been, and such will it ever be.
__________________
No way out but through the jews.
 
Old August 28th, 2009 #4
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
So really, tell me, what does it mean to be homophobic? What does that truly define? Someone, anyone, define this for me. If you are a homophobe, does it mean that you are actually “frightened” of men who make their own sexual choices? Does it mean you hate them? If you do, so what? If you have not promoted the use of state coercion/violence against homosexuals, what have you done that is “unlibertarian?” Why is it so important to people to “out” certain people as homophobes?
Sounds like there might be a few crypto-fags in the "mainstream" libertarian movement.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old August 28th, 2009 #5
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
It is an iron law that jews must be excluded from an organization or it will be subverted by them. There is no such thing as a pro-White organization including jews. That is a lie perpetrated by WhINOs bent on strangling our movement in the cradle. Here we see the same WhINO function at work in libertarianism. Although of course libertarianism is distorted individualism, and as such inherently anti-White, its hatred of all government, and the intellectual ability of many of its avatars, makes it at least intellectually threatening to the powers that be. So we Whites can look on and learn many lessons as we see the System try to coopt the libertarian movement in the usual ways: by redefining libertarianism, by buying off writers and leaders.
Something that I don't get...

Ludwig von Mises -- jew. Murray Rothbard -- jew. Ayn Rand -- jew.

How can the jews be accused of co-opting a movement which they were largely responsible for creating in the first place?
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old August 28th, 2009 #6
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Holocaustians claim...
Holocaustians. That's a good term. I hadn't heard it before.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old August 28th, 2009 #7
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,961
George Witzgall
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
Sounds like there might be a few crypto-fags in the "mainstream" libertarian movement.
I say fuck fags!
__________________
I understand and do not understand.
 
Old August 28th, 2009 #8
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
How can the jews be accused of co-opting a movement which they were largely responsible for creating in the first place?
Interesting point. The Jews also came into conflict with Bolshevism in the Stalin years (and later), notwithstanding that that was their baby too. What happens is that their fake univeralism catches up with them and threatens their particular interests. Then they break off and start a new, competing movement like Trotskyism or what Fields calls PC Libertarianism, and use their greater resources and group cohesion to marginalize their original movement.
 
Old August 28th, 2009 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
Something that I don't get...

Ludwig von Mises -- jew. Murray Rothbard -- jew. Ayn Rand -- jew.

How can the jews be accused of co-opting a movement which they were largely responsible for creating in the first place?
I don't think most libertarian ideas originated with jews, even tho they mostly do point to kikes von Mises and Rothbard. The point is that the same powers that be that try to quash WN try to quash/coopt/malign/smear any tendency or school within libertarianism that tends against authority, whether war in Iraq, public schooling, or whatever. If you're anti-state, and ZOG defines the state and its agenda, then you are anti-jew, whether or not you put it that way. You're anti-jew in function if not in form. That is an accurate description of the LRC tendency within libertarianism, which I take to be one of two schools. Very similar to the split in conservatism between paleos and neocons. Except that unlike the paleos, the LRC crowd is large, powerful and growing, whereas the paleos have failed. But we see the parallel between the neocons coming in and taking over the paleo institutions (back in the '80s) and the jewcentric, D.C.-friendly libertarians at Reason and Cato and the Koch Foundation taking the jewish state/party line and doing whatever they can to smear the Lewbund and scotch its intellectual efforts - i.e., attacking the Fed and laying low the Lincoln cult.
 
Old August 28th, 2009 #10
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

"These are the basics of libertarianism, now lets go in depth.

As stated above, libertarianism is often tied to liberalism. This is the true origin of libertarian thought, as then the beliefs of liberals were very much the same as today’s libertarians. The origins of libertarianism stretch back into the Renaissance with the humanist scholars of that time. Galileo and Erasmus were among the main humanists who began this type of thought about human rights. Galileo, who was tried on suspicion of heresy, was made to recant his scientific ideas which challenged Church doctrine. This whole event is seen as a crucial part in the development of human rights issues. Erasmus, in his De Libero Arbitrio Diatribe Sive Collatio -- challenges Martin Luther regarding his limited views of free will, also addressing human rights.

With the Reformation and Enlightenment came further expansion on these topics. Thomas Hobbes was one of the chief contributors to liberal thought with his book Leviathan . In the book, Hobbes illustrates that in a state of nature, man has access to everything in his world. But, because of the issue of scarcity, a man is in a state of perpetual war with other men. He believed, as the Epicureans did, that men do not wish there to be war, and therefore have created a social contract, in which they can do and have what they want as long as they do not harm others. Law to Hobbes was simply an enforcement of this contract. This sounds like what we often think of as libertarianism.

It is hard to read of Hobbes without also coming in contact with John Locke. Locke too believed in the social contract, but expanded on Hobbes’ ideas of governing such a society. He believed that in order for peoples’ rights to be assured, the government much be approved by the governed. He believed every man had a natural right to “life, liberty, and property,” and that a government should work to insure those rights. Replace property with pursuit of happiness and low and behold you have the preamble to the United States Constitution.

Locke played an integral part in the evolution of libertarianism. As shown above he greatly influenced Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, as well as other founding fathers of America. Jefferson, who was the main author of the Declaration of Independence, retells the philosophies of Hobbes and Locke almost verbatim, and when looking at his career one can see that he was a staunch advocate for libertarian thought. Hamilton too, although often seen as Jefferson’s nemesis, shared some of the same liberal beliefs. Madison, who is often referred to as the “father of the constitution,” along with Jefferson and Hamilton, is responsible for the inclusion of these thoughts on liberty into what are thought to be America’s guiding principles.

John Stuart Mill, who carried on the tradition of liberal (or libertarian) thought, wrote in his essay On Liberty about the struggle between authority and liberty. A crucial point he makes which may put libertarian beliefs into question is his idea of "the tyranny of the majority." If the social contract theory remains in tact, and it is the peoples' job to create the contract while it is the government's job to enforce it, what is to be said if the prevailing opinion is one which an individual feels is immoral or simply does not agree with? Mill, then, is forced to develop a list of the very basic liberties an individual has. Let us see if any of them sound familiar.

1. The freedom to think as one wishes, and to feel as one does. This includes the freedom to opinion, and includes the freedom to publish opinions known as the freedom of speech.
2. The freedom to pursue tastes and pursuits, even if they are deemed "immoral," as long as they do not cause harm.
3. The "freedom to unite" or meet with others, often known as the freedom of assembly.

These were the basic human rights, and to explain how the only way these liberties could be questioned, he is quoted as saying, "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Around the time Mill published his essay, the divide between what we think of as liberals and libertarians began. Those now considered to lean more towards the liberal side began showing an interest in more government power, most notably in the realm of economics."

No jews there. There are many, many other Whites. Say. Bastiat. Nock. Garet Garrett. Henry Hazlitt. Austrian economics came from the gentile Carl Menger. The Mises Institute should be named the Menger Institute. Jews must butt in, like Einstein butted into physics. The bulk of Rand's ideas had been stated by others. Objectivists admit this, but claim "she said it better." Salvation is always from the jews- anything else does not count.

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Histo...Libertarianism

See what "Ayn Sof" means in Kabbalah:

http://www.aynsof.com/

Last edited by Rick Ronsavelle; August 28th, 2009 at 04:27 PM. Reason: sp.
 
Old August 28th, 2009 #11
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

Ayn Sof (sometimes transliterated as Ein Sof) refers to the infinite Divine (or G_d). In Hebrew Ayn Sof means "Boundlessness", but is usually translated as "Without End." Often it is referred to as the "Infinite No-Thingness." It should be understood that this does NOT mean that Ayn Sof is "nothing" for It is NOT a THING, but is a "somethingness" that we cannot define in human terms. Ayn Sof, in the Kabbalistic tradition, is the ultimate source of all creation or existence!

Yeah, the ultimate source of all paper money creation!
 
Old August 28th, 2009 #12
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Rick, you're a credit to this forum. Thanks for posting.

The Last Ditch article is a good one, and one I've not seen before. I enjoy reading stuff along those lines, altho I don't know how much is out there. Mainly it consists in gibes or off-hands from the LRC blog posters.

I always like parallels, whether political or non-political. Parallels show us what's going on with our school by demonstrating the same relationships in a different context. This helps our analysis. As I say, always and everywhere we see the jew trying to blunt and coopt any tendency that works against state power.

We have too many WN willing to make excuses for P.T. Taylor. "He taught us niggers are stupid criminals!"

I look at it this way. The libertarians are not us. They don't deserve our support. They deserve our mocking for their selfishness and their cowardice. But. They have done far more to advance the WN cause through their anti-state efforts than a WhINO like P.T. Taylor has done.

Knocking dents in the Lincoln myth is very useful to our cause. As is talking about "Ending the Fed," and writing bestsellers on the theme.

The libertarians do not have our ends in mind, but they do a lot of our legwork in spite of themselves. Whatever reduces the tv- and school-spread faith in democray and the central state is good for us, because it casts doubt on ZOG, no matter libertarians don't call it ZOG. Libertarians create breaches and beachheads that can be filled just as easily by our memes and men as theirs.

I continue to maintain that the proper state for a White man is decentralized. Without the ability to make the most important decisions for himself, a White man degenerates from a man into a male, and finally a mouse. Centralized dictatorship while necessary at times for racial defense, in ordinary times is to the benefit only of degenerates and demagogues.
 
Old March 16th, 2010 #13
W.R.
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 124
W.R.
Default

Quote:
As stated above, libertarianism is often tied to liberalism. This is the true origin of libertarian thought, as then the beliefs of liberals were very much the same as today’s libertarians. The origins of libertarianism stretch back into the Renaissance with the humanist scholars of that time. Galileo and Erasmus were among the main humanists who began this type of thought about human rights.
And where have these wonderful "human rights" got us?

Face it, (classical) liberalism/libertarianism is a fraud. It's a road to nowhere.

Quote:
1. The freedom to think as one wishes, and to feel as one does. This includes the freedom to opinion, and includes the freedom to publish opinions known as the freedom of speech.
2. The freedom to pursue tastes and pursuits, even if they are deemed "immoral," as long as they do not cause harm.
3. The "freedom to unite" or meet with others, often known as the freedom of assembly.
Idealistic bunk. Read The Protocols sometime; the Jews who wrote that might introduce you to some reality.

The Classical Liberals were bullshit-peddlers, petty Utopians.
 
Old April 21st, 2012 #14
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Jews coopt unjewed institutions and ideological outposts across the spectum, in the case under consideration it is the nominally libertarian Cato Institute, which has been jewed, as described by Lincoln scholar Thomas DiLorenzo.

This is the political version of Dan Akroyd's corporate strategy in "Tommy Boy." Put his cheapo Zalinsky auto parts in the (expensive, high quality) Callahan box. Fool anyone not paying attention, which is 95% of the population.


How To Be a 'Principled' Beltway 'Libertarian'
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on April 21, 2012 07:48 AM

Mark Ames's article in The Nation that mocks the Cato Institute's supposed "independence" from its donors provides a few examples (among hundreds more, one can be sure) of what it takes to be a beltway "libertarian." These include:

Put the notorious John Yoo, defender of torture and the abolition of civil liberties during Bush's "war on terra" on your Supreme Court Review editorial board.

Publicly attack critics of the neocon "war on terra" as "terrorism's fellow travelers."

Call for yet another war by invading Pakistan.

Call for expanded FBI spying on Americans through warrantless wiretapping.

Call on Congress to expand and strengthen the odious PATRIOT Act.

Fire any genuine anti-interventionists on your foreign policy studies staff and force others to resign.

Hobnob with the likes of Tom DeLay and Dick Armey.

Pretend to be a "Gay Rights" organization while kissing up to people like Dick Armey who once called Barney Frank "Barney Fag."

Boast of how many of your former employees got appointments in the Bush administration.

Consider the placement of the chief funder of the neocon movement and all of its warmongering, Rupert Murdoch, on your board to be the coup of the century.

Have employees who give loads of money to Republican Party politicians.

Hire many former GOP political hacks to pretend to be "policy analysts."


Two things missing from Ames's list are: "Wage a vicious and malicious smear campaign against Ron Paul"; and, "After ignoring Ron Paul, the most prominent critic of the Fed in the past thirty years, at your annual monetary conference for 29 years, you finally get around to inviting him to speak there since he has become so enormously popular and will attract a crowd to your boring and predictable conference that no one cares about." Note: Dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of Fed bureaucrats have spoken at Cato's annual monetary conference over the years.

The extreme hypocrisy of Ames and The Nation should also be pointed out by saying that The Nation would never, ever, publish an article that challenges the independence of leftist academics whose research is funded by the government.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/110347.html
 
Old April 30th, 2012 #15
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Hans Norling
Default

Why would any WN'org want to band with Jewry?! Europe has done that for centuries, and where are in a fix right now notably because of the same Jewry in case it slipped someone's mind. Living with jews is like living in jail and some of us are just too damn tired of doing time.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 AM.
Page generated in 0.19483 seconds.