Saturday, September 23, 2017

Let’s Try a Little “Direct”…

To: September 23, 2017 at 7:00 AM


I am not concerned with my friend’s opinion about a white America.  I am concerned that he was confused about my opinion.  Allow me to clarify:

To set the stage, what does one mean by “white America”?  No more non-European migration?  Deporting all those from a non-European ancestry, no matter the small percentage in the blood?  Disallowing mixed marriages?  All these must occur to achieve a “white America.”

The first could be achieved relatively easily – it would require modifying the current government enforced immigration policies with a different set of government enforced immigration policies.  As there is no libertarian solution to immigration in a world of state borders, I am, at worst, ambivalent about this but could easily go for it. 

Of course, if the USG (run mostly by white people) would just stop all of the wars in countries populated by brown-skinned people – both traditional wars and drug wars – this entire problem would shrink dramatically of its own accord.

The second and third?  By force, and force of the most violent nature imaginable. 

So I am perfectly clear about how I feel about this (let’s call it bionic being direct):

In no, way, shape or form do I support such an idea.  I think those that do support such an idea out of concern for their descendants four or forty generations from now are either insane or have no idea what hell they are going to unleash on their family living today, right now, right here. 

Your choice: look your children in the eyes while holding the knife to their neck to do them in, or educate your children properly in how to become a productive and contributing member of society, a member that values and improves on the best of Western Civilization.  I know my choice.  To be clear about my choice: I am not insane.  (Put this together with the previous paragraph if my meaning isn’t clear enough for you).

Further, by far – and it isn’t even close – the most significant violators of my life and property are white males – not Jews, not Arabs, not Mexicans, not blacks (or whatever I am supposed to call them these days).  It is none of these other bogeymen that taxes 50% of my wealth and sends my sons to kill by the millions and be killed by the tens of thousands.  It is white males that have handed us the government enforced immigration that we live under today.

Like it matters to Jews that the US government bomb North Korea to hell or kill a few million Vietnamese; only a die-hard autistic Jew-hater can convolute a reason for this (and I am sure someone has, and I am sure a regular commenter to this site will point me to a book or a web site that explains the connection).

White men have done this long before anyone could find a Zionist worthy of the name – and would be doing it today even if there weren’t a Zionist anywhere to be found.  And, no, I am not saying Zionists, or the state of Israel, or many prominent Jews are blameless.  As I have asked: which Jews, by name.

But you will find more whiteys under the rocks than you will find Jews or anyone else.

Returning to a white America and the idea of racial purity: I cannot even dignify it with the label insanity; it is a ridiculous impossibility to achieve in any way other than the most diabolical violations of life ever imagined.

I have said it and I repeat: I am not for open borders; I am not for closed borders.  I am for private property owners to decide who and what is allowed on their property and who or what has access to their property.  Until property owners are free to decide this, all we are left with is government managed borders.

When I speak of the value of culture, I speak of the value of commonly accepted traditions and norms.  I speak of the civilized part of what is commonly referred to as Western Civilization. 

In a world without the government (run mostly by white males) forcing immigration (in other words, the opposite of our world today), the requirement for immigrants to fit in to such a culture – to assimilate – would force immigration to a natural level, a level that has occurred since man first walked on earth; immigration for those who know they must fit in or be excluded.

I value the civil part of Western Civilization; this is worth defending, but it can only be defended intellectually.  There is nothing civil about defending it violently – this only further destroys it. 

What’s so great about racial purity?  Many white people don’t value Western Civilization – I would rather rid my polity of these while welcoming Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams.

In any case, this train of racial purity left the station on the day that the first man left his parents, saying “I wonder if I can find a wife over there,” and the guy over there said “welcome,” as he considered the possibility of this stranger as a son-in-law.

And I am happy for this.

The solution for America?  Secession.  Take the election map from last year, by county.  Let’s start with that.  There is no other peaceful solution.

In the meantime, if the kooks on the far left and the kooks on the far right want to fight it out, I have a solution that will satisfy the kooks and me: organize the next protest in an area within two miles of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  There are so relatively few of you that I think you will all fit in this space.  Bring death and destruction to everything within your path – re-enact Sherman’s march.

If you happen to catch a few liberal arts professors at every college and university while you are on your way between your hometown and DC for this showdown, I won’t complain.


How is this for a direct bionic?  Or should I bring the other guy back?


  1. "How is this for a direct bionic? Or should I bring the other guy back?"

    Not nearly direct enough, to be honest.

    When your friend wrote of "white America", was he really referring to Israeli style policies that forbid inter-racial marriage and the like? If so why would he think that a libertarian supports something like that? Why would anyone think I support is a mystery to me as I have never written anything of the kind. People should marry whomever they please.

    Surely "white America" the pre-1965 America in which there was an unambiguous white majority. 10% of the population were black, who were criminally brought to America by greedy and shortsighted people. Therefore to be for "white America" is to be opposed to the deliberate system project (I hesitate to write "government" because there are so many cogs in this machine in the 21st century that "government" doesn't cover it) to re-engineer racial demographics and replace white people in America over time.

    That is it. Your friend is talking about opposition to this project as if it is some sort of sin. A white minority America is going to be a nightmare for white people, people who will have nowhere to go when the USA turns into Zimbabwe 2.0. Presumably your friend will embrace a "non-white" identity, and failing that decamp to Israel. Where will your white friends go? Everywhere in the western world the same process is underway.

    To be direct - if you are against opposition to the project of demographic replacement, then you are for the project of demographic replacement.

    By the way, my questions in my post were not rhetorical but direct questions. Does your friend support a "Jewish Israel" despite opposing a "white America"?, etc. You can find all the questions in my post and I would appreciate it if you answered them directly. Yes, I realize that the questions are in fact a trap for your friend, but it is important to reveal the absurdity of this.

    1. “Why would anyone think I support is a mystery to me as I have never written anything of the kind.”

      Did someone write that you did?

      In any case, as your questions are for my friend, I will leave it to him to answer. He certainly may do so anonymously if he likes. Or he may not reply at all. I am OK either way.

    2. Post attempt 3 - delete the other two, sorry.

      "In any case, as your questions are for my friend, I will leave it to him to answer."

      I am not interested in discussion with your anon friends. Actually, while my questions are about your friend, the questions are directed at you because you presumably know the answers. In the spirit of directness, my questions are:

      1. Does your friend oppose a white America?
      2. Is your friend in favor of a Jewish Israel?
      3. If he is against a Jewish Israel, does he send emails admonishing his friends for supporting a Jewish Israeli ethonostate?
      4. If he does support a Jewish Israel, how does he square that with opposition to a white America?

      If the answer to 1 and 2 is yes, how do YOU justify his moralizing? It would be one thing for him to oppose nation states everywhere (in the traditional sense of the term, now perhaps called an ethnostate), and another to oppose only for a particular ethnic group.

      It wasn't me that put your friend on the table for discussion, it was you. Rather than simply handwaving away your friend by telling me to discuss it with him (how?!), you should give an answer to the best of your ability.

      If not the only thing I can think is that an honest answer to these questions would be utterly discrediting to your friend. Like those people that call for open borders for my country, but call supporters of open borders for Israel "Jew haters".

    3. Matt

      I have answered your question(s) in the very first line of this post:

      "I am not concerned with my friend’s opinion about a white America."

      I haven't asked him and I don't intend to ask him.

      He reads the blog; he occasionally, though not often) comments; he occasionally sends me emails.

      He has seen your questions, I am sure (he hasn't told me this, but it is my reasoned speculation). If he chooses to respond, he will; if he doesn't, he won't.

      But you and I don't need to cross swords over getting my anonymous friend to reply, do we? I mean, we already have enough fodder in our own exchange to keep us busy for some time.

    4. BM,

      "Crossing swords" is gay slang in the Current Year of 2017, so maybe we shouldn't go there ;)

      Can we agree that there is a program that replace the white population of America with people from elsewhere? That it is proceeding apace, and that opposition to this plan is called "racism", and even "anti-semitism"?

      I am perhaps more worldly that you realize. I have travel to over 20 countries, and spent significant time in a few of them. I speak, read and write in 4 languages, 3 of which are rated "exceptionally difficult for native English speakers" by the Foreign Service Institute, and which are beyond the ability of the "polyglot" charlatans on YouTube.

      In my sojourns overseas, I have been able to leave the English language speaking bubble and interact directly with different modes of thought. What I have realized is that the social construct of "racism" is really only found in the west, and that white people in western countries are subject to a massive amount of brainwashing in relation to racism. In these countries that I lived in, "racism" is just lynching people for their race or ethnicity, nothing else. As far as I know, that is illegal almost everywhere.

      What is called "racism" in America (and the Americanized west) is just what normal countries are elsewhere. America is an abnormal country. Replacing Americans with foreign people's is an abnormal behavior which would not be accepted in all of the non-western countries to which I have visited or lived. Many people in these countries have asked me why the governments of western countries are handing over their nation to foreigners. Why indeed.

      This project to make whites a minority in American is linked to all the wars that America is involved in. Have you noticed that the same people calling everything "racist" are the same people that call for bombing foreigners and invading their lands? Is there any collective ethnic action in both of these agendas? How about -

      These are the same people that called Ron Paul "anti-Semitic" for calling for an end to all foreign aid, because ending foreign aid would mean funds would not go to Israel (and if you recall correctly, almost the entirety of foreign aid goes towards Israel or for bribing their enemies, as I demonstrated in your first post about the Jooz). In a sense they are not completely wrong, because foreign aid is merely a device to fund Israel.

      What I demand is equality with Jews. If they can call for open borders for my country, I want to call for open borders for Israel without being called a "Jew hater". After all, I just wish them the "benefits" of diversity that they wish for me.

    5. Matt

      Now I can’t even use the phrase “crossing swords”? Even this is taken from me? I guess I will do my best to carry on….

      “Can we agree that there is a program that replace the white population of America with people from elsewhere?”

      Yes. I will add: I think the US will break up into multiple political entities before a major portion of the population agrees to be converted from a majority to a minority.

      “Have you noticed that the same people calling everything "racist" are the same people that call for bombing foreigners and invading their lands?”

      In many instances, yes.

      From the link that you provide:

      “…we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu…”

      Even if I grant this to be true, please note – the point made in the article is about America’s wars in the Middle East.

      My point: Anglos were fighting in the Middle East long before there was any Jews with enough power and access to “force” the Anglos to do this; Anglos fight in all four corners of the world, with the Middle East being one tiny spec of the desired global control.

      In other words, Anglos would fight in the Middle East with or without Jews “forcing” Anglos to do it, because a) Anglos have fought in the Middle East for centuries, and b) Anglos love to fight EVERYWHERE.

      Jews and the state of Israel are an excuse, not a reason, for wars in the Middle East. If Jews and the state of Israel did not have power in the US, then the US would find another excuse to bomb the crap out of Arabs and Muslims. In the end, the Anglo wars are for the purpose of controlling or disallowing others to control the vast world island.

      “…I want to call for open borders for Israel without being called a "Jew hater"”

      You know, I just noticed that someone linked my open-borders-for-Israel challenge at a sub-reddit for anarcho-capitalism or some such. Last time I checked, no response, but it is difficult for me to focus at the site because the vulgarity makes the zero-hedge audience seem like a church choir.

  2. I like the direct BM. Plus it's still civil.

  3. You may have worked through this before, but it's something you've helped me struggle through: Would I rather have NAP without culture, or a highly desirable culture that still doesn't understand NAP brings much of which is desirable and in fact often scoffs at NAP/anarcho-capitalism while trading and not killing each other?

    I'm not as deeply invested so apologize if that doesn't somewhat capture your own struggles.

    Thank you, Eric Morris

    1. VfPI / Eric

      I have touched on this once or twice, but I don’t believe I have written a post specifically on it.

      So, my choice is to live in a community that respects the NAP and not much of anything else, or a community with a generally conservative culture and reasonably appropriate non-aggression respecting views – maybe not perfect, the roads and sidewalks are public, we have a mayor, most certainly we are not war-mongers: something along these lines (I picture Pat Buchanan as a neighbor).

      So, the first community: one neighbor has orgies on the front lawn daily; another, animal sacrifices; a third has a meth lab. They aren’t aggressing against me…but…I mean, really?

      Or, Pat Buchanan – wife, grandkids come by once in a while, attend church on Sunday. Sure, he gets to vote on my property tax bill, but the troubles don’t extend much beyond this.

      Let’s look forward twenty years: which community will have a better chance to survive, let alone thrive? Which community will look more relatively libertarian? I think the answer to both questions is the same – the second community.

      One of many things I have learned through my dialogue with UC – the culture is more important than the NAP if one wants to approach a community that reasonably respects the NAP.

    2. Thank you very much. You've helped me come to a similar conclusion. When I first really understood NAP five or so years ago, I could probably say that it is good enough. However, further reading, and a lot from you more recently, has helped me get where you are. That was further burnished in the real world in dealing with the one of the end-alls of NAP, HOA. I live in a nice community, safe, etc., but they are not fully "evolved" on NAP. Am I going to move simply because they vote in a different way on the HOA bill? No, and you helped keep me from going overboard on NAP and getting my wife upset about the slight NAP violation to the point of asking her to move.

      Anyway, thank you!

      Sincerely, Eric

    3. Eric, I am glad you find the dialogue here fruitful.

      Regarding your HOA situation: One of my "aha" moments came when reading Ryan McMaken, who wrote something like libertarianism doesn't give us perfect; in this world it can give us more choices.

      I phrase this: libertarianism in theory is decentralization in practice (actually, he may have also written this...I don't remember).

    4. That's a good summation of Mises' view, seems to me.

  4. "One of many things I have learned through my dialogue with UC – the culture is more important than the NAP if one wants to approach a community that reasonably respects the NAP."

    And that pretty well sums up, in one sentence, a topic I find so interesting here at this site. If we had a monarch that truly feared god, I might be inclined to prefer a benevolent monarchy over what we have today.

  5. BM

    I have no difficulty understanding where you stand on the concept of "white America."


    I have a difficult time understanding where you stand on the concept of "white America."

  6. nice article 

    “The solution for America?  Secession.”

Secession is the withdrawal of a group from a larger entity, especially a political entity.

I don't think this process ( Secession ) can happen peacefully.

I think better solution is decentralization.

    Decentralization is the process of distributing or dispersing functions, powers, people or things away from a central location or authority.

    Of the 50 U.S. states, 48 states are divided into a total of 3,007 counties.


    1. We tried secession before, and peacefully at that. It turned violent. It flies in the face of libertarian principles that more violence of a centralized nature militarily could have ensured victory, but I believe it would have, and you wouldn't have seen the culture destruction that we have today, at least in the South. Oh how many times I wished in agony that those men might've fought harder, more violently towards their enemy; how much freeer might I have been had they won the bloody contest, which I would like to disclaim that I honor their valiant defense, whether in defeat or victory.
      BM, I would love the 2nd neighborhood as well, but without a strong Christian Soldiery to defend yourselves, 3007 counties will quickly become centralized again, with only the ones that are able to defend themselves left to face the growing juggernaughts on their borders.
      In the libertarian ideal I've heard of insurance companies and mercenary companies handling all of this. Mercenaries don't fight very hard, or with morals necessarily. The negative attitude that classical liberlism ends up with, that it's every man for himself and you have no obligations to your community except contractually is the reason for this. In a society where the members of said community are ideally bound positively in duty toward one another (this can only be provided forcefully, through a common culture that discriminates against those born into the culture but wanting out of this responsibility to one's Brothers) can a strong defensive military operating on true moral precept exist.
      It is interesting to note that the farther we stray in time and space from monarchy ("totalitarianism", dictatorship, fascism, etc.) the farther we stray from the latter ideal, and closer to the former; degenerate communist societies whose soldiers and govt officials are basically mercenaries; paid for by taces or contract in any case, and operating under selfish, and inherently non-moral precepts, but material ones.
      I obviously have a preference for one over the other.

    2. "It flies in the face of libertarian principles that more violence of a centralized nature militarily could have ensured victory, but I believe it would have..."

      I believe this is completely the opposite of what it would have taken for the south to win.

      When an inferior industrial power opposes a superior one, guerilla warfare is the only strategy that offers hope.

      Make the war last forever, don't offer centralized targets.

      This is what won victory in the American revolution; it is what has always won victory for the Afghans.

    3. BM,
      Thank you I had not seriously thought of this strategy as applies to the War of Secession.
      I know that there was talk among the higher ranks in 1865 that the war could be carried on in Appalachia in guerilla form. I agreed with them that that strategy was hopeless, but only for the time in which it would've finally been implemented. It remains to be seen in practical usage what would have happened.
      I agree that the Revolution was won partly by militias fighting in guerilla tactics, especially in SC. However in the north, regular troops were employed, and with effectiveness. Yes, Washington had to stay on the move, but he kept his force together, albeit spread out from time to time. In fact Washington held the view that, Depending upon the militia is assuredly resting on a broken staff. This was especially true for his style of a more centralized and regular warfare; not so true for Gen Marion in SC. Although he had a rough time holding the British for lack of quality troops, his mind was very fertile to the tactics of guerilla warfare.
      This being the backdrop of guerilla tactics used during the Revolution, it could be argued that the military aid from France (centralized and regular) turned the tide against the British and was the decisive factor for bringing a close to the war. If Britain was not at war with France at the time, her full might could've been borne on us and guerilla or not, the chances would be slim at best.
      So, I'm not saying that guerilla warfare wouldn't have worked for the South, however I think tactics and strategies used by cavalry commanders JEB Stuart and NB Forrest, as well as Jackson's "foot cavalry" of the Shenandoah Campaign were our best bet. Centralized, regular forces that can move rapidly in support of the large targets that are, as you point out, weaknesses of a sort.
      In war there are many paths to victory, so I think you could be right, at the same time so could I. The path chosen is the only one we see in action, for one path leads to one end; both paths may not be case tested in the same war at the same under the same circumstances so we never see the practical results of, "this strategy was definitely better than that one" because only one means is used for one outcome. We may definitely say that the South's strategy did not work given it's circumstances; however we can only speculate as to which other strategy would've worked better. Practical usage is the arbiter in which victory or defeat is known, and not speculated.
      Anyway thank you again BM, I'm always grateful to be shown new possibilities that I had not considered before. I would like to add to your cites the Spanish Civil War. In the beginning the communists held the fascist army at bay, in my opinion because of their usage of non-regular troops employed in guerilla fashion.
      As soon as stalinists from Russia started abvising a more static and centralized warfare, the communist front went all to Hell. It is obvious this is because they should have stuck to guerilla warfare instead of listening to stalin, who couldn't even win a static war without like 5 to one numbers superiority against the Germans.

    4. All good, and you are right - we can't know for sure what would have happened if another path was chosen.

    5. May I point out that the generally unarmed farmers of the Israelites during the first four hundred years or so in Canaan (the "promised land") were able to throw out the "centralized" invaders several times. And the record in Judges notes that the invasions only happened when they fell into the cultural (diabolical, idolatrous, violent) practices of the surrounding people's.

      Perhaps the verse "When a man's ways please the Lord, he makers even his enemies to be at peace with him" works through "Love they neighbor as thyself" (in peaceful trade, for example).

      We see this at work with the USA today I think. At first the Pilgrims had peaceful relations with the Indians, trading and sharing nature's bounty with them. The trouble came with them after palefaces stopped acting Christ- like.

      And when the Gramsci strategy began bearing its evil fruit in the West, especially in the USA, military adventurism and interventionism went massive along with Grand Theft Taxation.

      Slavery gave the North a fig leaf of "virtue" to cover its worse sins. Those who accepted enslaving the States and their citizens (and their heirs) have paid the price along with the rest of us for all that. Reap and sow.

      Now comes whatever is next, and a weakened USA. The Burning Man crowd does not know what it is "asking for". I do not think a total nuclear war is in the future but a couple of hits maybe. Done by ten rulers in a huddle, maybe even in secret, according to Revelation 17 and 18. In Zechariah find a precise description of the effect of a nuclear blast on a standing person.

  7. "How is this for a direct bionic? Or should I bring the other guy back?"

    Meh... it lacked nuance. :D

    Can we now please get back to those wonderfully insightful articles of yours?

    1. " lacked nuance."

      Not that you need to write like Mises, but may I ask: was it the old bionic or the new one that you are speaking of?

      As to the wonderfully insightful I recall, you appreciate the history. I hope to get to one or two more from the book "America's Great Game" this week, but it is going to be a busy week for me in my real-world life...

    2. "was it the old bionic or the new one that you are speaking of?"

      Frankly, I didn't see a difference. (And yes, that was a joke, too.)

      I look forward to the next AGG installments when you get 'round to them.

  8. Would it make a difference if instead of white the word Caucasoid was used?

  9. I am in favor of seccession. It might be the only peaceful way. Of course, as a libertarian I adhere to the NAP & private property rights. Also I personally would love to live in a community of my preference or as close as I could get it. However, due to the current state we live in their is no freedom of association. I can not start a tech business and hire all Asian staff. I believe everyone should have tge right to discriminate. I am reminded by Thomas Sowell when he speaks on it economically reminding us discrimination bears a cost. As libertarians we should be open to seccessionist movements. I msy be rambling, but if you don't understand. Please ask me I'm open to converstation

  10. I recently came across a surprisingly direct quote from Gore Vidal (no cultural conservative, he!) on the issue of "preserving whiteness." At a 1999 lecture in Dublin, he said:

    "A characteristic of our present chaos is the dramatic migration of tribes. They are on the move from east to west, from south to north.

    "Liberal tradition requires that borders must always be open to those in search of safety or even the pursuit of happiness. But now with so many millions of people on the move, even the great-hearted are becoming edgy.

    "Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in 40 to 50 million homeless Bengalis. If the Norwegians say that, all in all, they would rather not take them in, is this to be considered racism? I think not. It is simply self-preservation, the first law of species."

    1. some questions:

problem are not borders or immigrants “per se”

      problem is your religion --what is it ?

      who can be citizen ? why?

      who can vote? why?

      laws are changing --evolving constantly -- why?

      should natives who do not follow same religion, or do not work and pay taxes have right to vote?

      what about convicts?

      what about government employees -- they are paid out of taxes -- should they have right to vote?

what if you pay 1 million in taxes and me 1000 --should we have same right or number of votes?

      (every new generation find that some previous generation did some unlawful killing and feel pity and remorse. )



    2. Max a quick gloss of the problems you have posed point out one simple answer-Democracy fails in most real world cases.

  11. For Matt
    Conspiracy Theories
    There are, of course, good conspiracy analysts and bad conspiracy analysts, just as there are good and bad historians or practitioners of any discipline. The bad conspiracy analyst tends to make two kinds of mistakes, which indeed leave him open to the Establishment charge of "paranoia." First, he stops with the cui bono; if measure A benefits X and Y, he simply concludes that therefore X and Y were responsible. He fails to realize that this is just a hypothesis, and must be verified by finding out whether or not X and Y really did so.

    Academic historians dislike the concept that history is often made by groups of individuals plotting together in confidence, even though one obvious way to get big things done is to make plans with your friends and allies while keeping your rivals in the dark as long as possible.

    Where there is conspiracy, there must be secrecy and groups operating in secret to a coordinated agenda. To truly understand the impact of conspiracies in history, one must understand the extent of secret societies throughout the ages. Secret societies have provided the cover and coordination for all the conspiracies of any real importance. We know that many of our Presidents and many of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons. The Bushes (as well as John Kerry and many captains of industry) were part of Skull and Bones. The Knights Templar, the Jesuits, the Knights of Malta, Opus Dei and Ordo Templi Orientis..
    The Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group and Bohemian Grove are modern and inarguably secretive organizations that coordinate an agenda on an international and global scale, away from public scrutiny.”

    I recommend that you do not obsess over any particular trend in society. There are numerous trends, and people join numerous special-interest groups and action groups either to extend the trends or to try to reverse them.

    some books for reading:


  12. Libertarians and their muh freedom. What you need to do is dump silly novels where the "hero" runs away like a chicken to escape a jackboot state. Where are you going to run to? Where can you get this "freedom"? Face it, non-Whites have nowhere near the same culture or values. Individualism is a bad idea anyway. When has one man stood alone and made a life by himself? Are you some kind of God that can make a world of your own and not be overrun by mobs and hordes? You are delusional. "Non-Aggression Principle" is nonsense. Every creature has a living space. Lose it and you are dead. They cry for some spotted owl, but Whites being made to run from hordes of rapines terrorists, they just love. Genocide. They are the Haters. Haters of the freedom you idolize. Failed races and untermensch. Here to steal, because they are TOO DUMB TO MAKE. There is NO SUCH THING AS PEACE. The Lion sleeps comfortably in the noonday sun. He and his pride can only be driven out by elephants or perhaps rhinos. Strength makes the weak hide all day and only come out at night. Strength can relax and be what it wants. Weakness lives in shadows and fear. THERE CAN NEVER BE PEACE. ANY CREATURE THAT CANNOT HOLD A LIVING SPACE FOR ITSELF WILL SOON BE EXTINCT!

    1. Jonathan, I hear that there is a rally being organized at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Make sure you get on the invitee list.

    2. Jonathan, I'll bring the bullets, you bring the popcorn:-)
      The irony is that fascists are abiding by the NAP;
      Our culture, people, and future is under intellectually dishonest and violent attack.
      Just like my rifle, fascism is something that sat on the shelves for lack of a need for present usage. With increasing danger, the weapons come off the shelf...
      At the very least we are willing to put ourselves in harms way to fight for our children's posterity. I wish my immediate forebears had done the same thing, instead I live in a world where I have the right to pay taxes and die. How fruitful.

    3. "...I live in a world where I have the right to pay taxes and die."

      Are you sure that those fascist that you so admire hold a different view on these topics than that which is today accepted? If you believe that they hold this view, are you sure that their purity will survive the fire of revolution?

    4. I do not admire all of fascism. As I said before I have personal reasons to Hate corporate fascism. I am not sure that these right wingers are even correct in strategy, but I am willing to consider it for study and digestion. Weapons can be dangerous to the user but only user error can account for this.
      I do not know what all of their views consist of, as I have only just begun study on this subject.
      But for the sake of discourse let's say that I believe they hold this view. Even if they did there is no promise that such purity would survive the fire of revolution. Danger is an integral part of war, and no matter how much one plans, how much one trains, how much one prepares, the chance for defeat is always present.
      On that note I would like to add that I used to pray for revolution. I also used to be leftist in ideology, albeit unknowingly. We need more time for preparation and to gain strength; not just physically, but morally. And to spread the notion that accepted party line does not have to be obeyed, new possibilities may be considered, and a give decentralizing mood more time to manifest itself among flyover country.
      I'm not truly fascist, but am more in line with paleo-conservative thought prevalent in the early part of the last century in America. This alone makes me a fascist by today's liberal use of the word pun intended:-)
      Suffice it to say I'm beginning to crystallize a thought:
      Imagine standing on one leg, attempting to balance. You start to lean to the left a little; in compensation you lean to the right in order to correct your balance from falling. If you stay leaning to the right however, you will fall, or else need to lean left again. This is the history of states that could not balance well. Leaning to far right calls for action toward the left, and vice-versa. Hence, the alt-right's bent on national socialism and fascism. Something I am also fascinated by in determining the best strategies to achieve victory.
      Before Locke's leftist ideas the British state stood relatively central polity compared to any state appearing to be any modicum of moderate and central in it's policies.
      In sum, Life is all about balance. If a state is to remain balanced, and the state will exist in some form (I refer to Matt's comments on RI and george soros), then it's leaders must realize this if they want to remain in business. As any leaning too far one way or the other will always lead to a chaotic flip flop of ideology over time.

    5. "We need more time for preparation and to gain strength; not just physically, but morally."

      Yes. Without the right moral strength, war will lead through and to an even worse hell.

      It seems we can agree that now is not the time for physical confrontation, let's also agree that the thing to work on is to develop moral strength.

      And I am willing to bet that once we gain the right moral strength, we will have less need for a physical confrontation.

      You and I need not agree on this in the long run, given that we agree on the short run - we need time to gain strength morally.

    6. I agree on all but one point BM, and only slightly (please forgive me for picking nits :-) but I feel it must be said) at that; Moral strength is paramount for our objectives but physical strength must not be left to the wayside.
      Because carrying a big stick will often deter an oppurtunistic bully (USG) from attacking. As we need more time, at the very least we should be able to show them that a physical confrontation is not worth it yet, therefore buying more time.
      Work out, exercise, do yoga, meditate, make physical connections with like minded people: this sort of activity leads away from commie degeneration and towards civic moral strength.

    7. "Because carrying a big stick will often deter an oppurtunistic bully (USG) from attacking."

      If your plan in any way involves taking on or confronting the USG, I strongly suggest that you come up with a different plan.

    8. I do not mention a plan of action, as I do not have one. As I said I'm digesting new tactics and weapons (in the abstract, I do not plan on the battle royale USG v Josh although that sounds pretty epic:-))but the tactic you highlighted is to keep goons whether blue or antifa off my back. Like in UK, you are not even allowed to carry a stick at all. Crime is worse there than in my neighborhood, for example, where we all carry sticks. The point is not that I wish to use my stick, but rather that it keeps others from oppurtunistically using their sticks because I don't carry one.

    9. Josh, it is not clear to me your position regarding those who are "blue." If I understand you correctly (USG), my comment still stands.

      I am not saying you must agree, just making my view clear.

    10. Understood perfectly clear.

  13. Examples of Cognitive Problems Associated with Schizophrenia ----

    -Frequent loose association of thoughts or speech- when one thought does not logically relate to the next. For example, "I need to go to the store to buy some band-aids. I read an article about how expensive AIDS drugs are. People take too many street drugs. The streets should be clean from the rain today, etc"

    -Lack of insight (called anosognosia). Those who are developing schizophrenia are unaware that they are becoming sick. The part of their brain that should recognize that something is wrong is damaged by the disease.