In the wake of President Trump’s announced decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Accord, many of his supporters are celebrating a decision which has seemingly triggered the Left, especially after months of Trump’s cucking and outright betrayal of other campaign promises.
He may be selling out on Israel, immigration and NAFTA, the thinking goes, but at least he’s willing to stick it to the Left on the environment. This issue masks yet another break from true Right principles, and at the same time, highlights an insidious strain of creeping Liberalism within our ranks. It’s time to set the record straight on the relationship between environmentalism and the Alt-Right.
Common perception dates the birth of the environmentalist movement to the counterculture of the late 1960s and early 70s, following publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and organizations such as Greenpeace, and the founding of Earth Day. The movement rapidly gained popular momentum because of the shocking ecological impact of a century of unchecked industrialization, as in 1969 when an Ohio river became so polluted it actually caught on fire(!). In the public consciousness, this movement is now fused with many cultural Marxist ideas of the era, such as second-wave feminism, forced integration of public schools and the abolishment of national origin quotas for immigration. As a result, there are many on the Right who associate opposition to environmentalism with fighting cultural Marxism, and this is absolutely wrong.
Until the George W. Bush era, environmentalist causes found broad support among both liberals and conservatives. As late as 2004, the Sierra Club included a major faction which was implacably opposed to mass immigration on environmental grounds, and was only purged from the organization by Cultural Marxists after a prolonged and bitter power struggle. If anything, the historic Republican Party can claim a greater legacy on environmental issues than the Democrats: not only did Bill Clinton come under severe criticism from environmentalists for his passage of NAFTA and support for corporate globalization, but it was none other than Leftist boogeyman Richard Nixon who presided over the “environmental decade” of the 1970s, creating the EPA and passing the Clean Air Act in 1970. Yet even Nixon’s substantial contribution pales in comparison to Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, who proclaimed “Conservation as a National Duty,” created the United States Forest Service, established 150 National Forests, and placed over 230,000,000 acres under public protection.
This history is suppressed today, not only because it is in the interests of astroturfing Big Business in the GOP to pretend environmentalism was always aligned against patriotism and tradition, but also because the Left wants us to forget not all environmentalists were always radical supporters of race-mixing, feminism and mass third world immigration. The flag-waving cuckservative oligarchs of the energy industry use this issue to dupe masses of rural and working class Red State America into supporting their destructive greed, while the Left uses it to recruit millions of educated middle-and-upper-class white youth in the cities and on college campuses for their anti-white agenda. How many intelligent, conscientious urban hipsters, SWPLs and Bernie Bros end up siding with the Leftist destroyers of their people because, after all, the Right wants to destroy planet Earth?
If the above historical facts come as a shock, one should stay in Wonderland a little longer, and see just how deep the Rabbit Hole goes: not only was environmentalism not born in the Leftist degeneracy of the 1970s, but the roots of the environmentalist movement run straight back to the beginning of the racialist Right itself.
Charles Lindbergh, the unbelievably courageous aviation hero and spokesman for the America First Committee, which sought to keep the US out of WW2, wrote: “How long can men thrive between walls of brick, walking on asphalt pavements, breathing the fumes of coal and oil, growing, working, dying, with hardly a thought of wind, and sky, and fields of grain, seeing only machine-made beauty, the mineral-like quality of life?” This literal tree-hugging environmentalist (there is a famous photograph of him hugging a tree) also wrote, “We can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood, only so long as we guard ourselves against attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races.”
The man who coined the term “ecology” was 19th-century German biologist and naturalist Ernst Haeckel, and his influence on the historical racialist movement cannot be overstated. This topic is explored in a 1996 book called “Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience” by left-wing academics Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier, which should be required reading in the Alt Right. They examine a number of figures central to the development of both ecology and racialism, such as author and poet Ernst Moritz Arndt:
While best known in Germany for his fanatical nationalism… historians of German environmentalism mention [Arndt] as the earliest example of “ecological” thinking in the modern sense. His remarkable 1815 article “On the Care and Conservation of Forests,” written at the dawn of industrialization in Central Europe, rails against shortsighted exploitation of woodlands and soil, condemning deforestation and its economic causes…. Ardnt’s environmentalism, however, was inextricably bound up with virulently xenophobic nationalism. His eloquent and prescient appeals for ecological sensitivity were couched always in terms of the well-being of the German soil and the German people, and his repeated lunatic polemics against miscegenation, demands for teutonic racial purity… marked every aspect of his thought. At the very outset of the nineteenth century the deadly connection between love of land and militant racist nationalism was firmly set in place.
These Leftist critics, writing during the 1990s “end of history,” pejoratively describe the 19th-century völkish racialist movement as: “a powerful cultural disposition and social tendency which united ethnocentric populism with nature mysticism.”
At the heart of the völkish temptation was a pathological response to modernity. In the face of the very real dislocations brought on by the triumph of industrial capitalism and national unification, völkish thinkers preached a return to the land, to the simplicity and wholeness of a life attuned to nature’s purity…. [T]he völkish movement carried a volatile amalgam of nineteenth century cultural prejudices, Romantic obsessions with purity, and anti-Enlightenment sentiment into twentieth century political discourse. The emergence of modern ecology forged the final link in the fateful chain which bound together aggressive nationalism, mystically charged racism, and environmentalist predilections.
In other words, the racialist and environmentalist movements share the same origin point in history. The key to understanding the deeply right-wing roots of ecology is understanding that the historical Right-Left axis comes from the French Revolution, with the main difference being that the Left stands for egalitarianism, while the Right stands for the aristocratic principle of nature. Unlike communism and capitalism, both which owe their origins to the Enlightenment, fascism has its roots in the Romantic movement which sprang forth as a rebellion against the excesses of Enlightenment materialism and exaggerated rationalism. Racial nationalism was born in the Romantic movement, which is why it is such a revolutionary challenge to the world of today.
Tracing the story of German racialism and environmentalism reveals the interesting history of the Wandervögel youth movement, described as “right-wing hippies” with a “back-to-the-land emphasis” and “passionate sensitivity to the natural world and the damage it suffered.” A historical precursor to our current Nipsters, perhaps, and a point of crossover appeal to the Bernie Bros? Surely, for all their cultural Marxist virtue signaling, the modern environmentalist movement is overwhelmingly dominated by white people, to the point where one might be tempted to say environmentalism, even more than Cracker Barrel, is the last bastion of implicit whiteness.
The ethnostate created in Germany between 1933-45 was the most environmentally advanced in the world. “Blood and Soil ideology” was explicitly environmentalist, founded as it was on the connection between the people and the land, and this view was represented at the highest levels of power by such leaders as Richard Walter Darré, Fritz Todt, Alwin Seifert and Rudolf Hess. Todt, the builder of the Autobahn, demanded a harmony with nature and with the landscape in the creation of the legendary highway system:
The ecological aspects of this approach to construction went well beyond an emphasis on harmonious adaptation to the natural surroundings for aesthetic reasons; Todt also established strict criteria for respecting wetlands, forests and ecologically sensitive areas. But just as with Arndt, Riehl and Darré, these environmentalist concerns were inseparably bound to a völkish-nationalist outlook. Todt himself expressed this concern succinctly: “The fulfillment of mere transportation purposes is not the final aim of German highway construction. The German highway must be an expression of its surrounding landscape and an expression of the German essence.”
Hess, an “inveterate nature lover,” enthusiastically backed “a wide array of environmentalist legislation… approved and implemented at national, regional and local levels,” including “reforestation programs, bills protecting animal and plant species, and preservationist decrees blocking industrial development…. Planning ordinances were designed for the protection of wildlife habitat and at the same time demanded respect for the sacred German forest. The Nazi state also created the first nature preserves in Europe.” One of the greatest accomplishments of National Socialist ecologists was the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz of 1935. “This completely unprecedented ‘nature protection law’ not only established guidelines for safeguarding flora, fauna, and ‘natural monuments,’ across the Reich; it also restricted commercial access to remaining tracts of wilderness. In addition, the comprehensive ordinance ‘required all national, state and local officials to consult with Naturschutz authorities in a timely manner before undertaking any measures that would produce fundamental alterations in the countryside.’”
Contrast this attitude to that of Russian Jewess Alisa Rosenbaum, also known as Ayn Rand, who according to columnist Florence King, “hated nature lovers so much she almost threw (her biographer) Barbara Branden out of the house for saying that she enjoyed scenery.”
To Rand, nature was not only wild and irrational, just as Rousseau said, but also “malevolent”…. Anyone who dared say a good word for nature had to listen to Rand sing the praises of skyscrapers, concrete, steel girders, smokestacks, and even industrial smoke, for these were the products of the rational mind of Man, who invented them. The individual unwise enough to suggest that these things are inanimate had to sit up until 4 a.m. listening to Rand explain why a blast furnace symbolized an “exalted sense of life.”
Ayn Rand typifies the insidious strain of anti-racial, anti-nature classical Liberalism which has wormed its way into our movement. The Ayn Rand Institute “maintains it is vital to oppose the antihuman ideology of environmentalism and to uphold the indispensable values of reason, science, technology, industrialization and laissez-faire capitalism,” a view which celebrates mankind’s triumph over nature. Contrast this to the view of a National Socialist educator, who wrote “anthropocentric views in general had to be rejected. They would be valid only if it is assumed that nature has been created only for man. We decisively reject this attitude. According to our conception of nature, man is a link in the living chain of nature just as any other organism.” This perception led directly to “the link between environmental purity and racial purity”:
Two central themes of biology education follow from the holistic perspective: nature protection and eugenics. If one views nature as a unified whole, students will automatically develop a sense for ecology and environmental conservation. At the same time, the nature protection concept will direct attention to the urbanized and “over civilized” modern human race.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was a close friend of Ayn Rand, and was a member of Rand’s inner circle who read “Atlas Shrugged” as it was being written. When he was sworn in as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in 1974, Ayn Rand stood at his side. Greenspan was the spiritual godfather of the globalist financial class which dominated American policy during the 1990s and ran our economy into the ground in the new century. The anti-environmentalism of the present “conservative” movement is nothing but a modernist, capitalist, classically Liberal, materialist Jewish conception which has found fertile ground in the hands of billionaire plutocrats wiping out nature all over the Earth for the sake of higher profit margins.
The Alt Right was born as an “alternative” to Bush-Cheney era neoconservatism, when this strain of vile anti-environmentalism became entrenched within the Republican Party. The same capitalist, globalist “Right” which rejects environmentalism also fully embraces immigration to lower the cost of labor, as well as race-mixing and the defilement of Western culture in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. But the history of the real Right unambiguously reveals the inseparable connection between race-consciousness and ecology, love and care for the land as corollary to love and care for one’s people, the aristocratic value of beauty and culture fulfilled in the Romantic passion for nature, the desire for a clean and healthy race expressed also in the demand for a clean and healthy environment, and the absolute rejection of the egoistic, destructive profit motive when it clashes with either the life demands of race-preservation or land-conservation. In recent years the cultural Marxist Left has been allowed to run wild with environmental causes, even though ecology runs totally counter to their modernist, hedonistic, individualistic, egalitarian ideology. True environmentalism belongs to the real right – to the Alt Right – and it’s time we take it back.
Brilliantly stated. Fantastic article.
Protecting the environment and embracing Leftist nonsense related to environmentalism are two very different things. i doubt Hitler would have signed an agreement to subsidize windmills for Africans, despite the implications in this article.
Conservation is a good thing, but man-made climate change via C02 isn’t real, and a lot of Environmentalism is anti-human – which somehow always ends up being anti-white-human in particular.
I voted you up even though I frankly don’t consider myself competent enough to make a sound judgement on the climate debate and really have nothing against anti-human philosophy. I did so because you brought up how contemporary PC Marxist environmentalism is anti-White. Marxism is an extreme egalitarian philosophy that logically must ended up as anti-White. It must be so because, most “humans” are not White. We whites must be suppressed so that we don’t “oppress” non-Whites. Actually we must be more then suppressed we must be “abolished” so as to end human oppression and the ruthless exploitation of the planet. This is the logical eco-Marxist position to take on the question of White Europeans. Europeans are nothing more then the dominant class in an oppressive Global White Supremacist system. Thus in the eco-Marxist system of thought White European occupies a position simular to “noble” under feudalism. The real truth is that we, the European White race, are the fittest hominids to ever evolve. As such we must become the earth’s top and only pan-global predators. Once we have truly accomplished this, we will then be the essential planetary keystone species. But, it is imperative for the accomplishment of our destiny, that we must ruthlessly apply Lifeboat Ethics to lesser breeds. They must not be wiped out if at all possible, for to do so would be to mar the plant’s biodiversity. Our role as keystone species is of course to sustain and enhance biodiversity. But, there can no question to our being sentimental about our role as keystone species. We must prey upon lesser breeds of hominids. Thus, their breeding and consumption of resources will be controlled. This is nature’s way. Alas for ourselves and the planet we are not the proud predators we should be. It is as if we being inhibited by say …
But I still think the PCA was a scam that wouldn’t really help the environment
Hey cunts.. the science isn’t settled. Cocksuckers can write grants but they’re still cock suckers.
Great article, critically important and full of little known facts! Shame on those
within our ranks who have joined liberals and conservatives in rejecting
science and common sense.
“Educated” liberals reject the science of race because it conflicts with the kumbaya
culture they dream of. Kosher conservatives reject environmental science
because it inhibits their ability to make money.
True nationalists (i.e. blood and soil) looked the other way whenever Trump denied
global warming and/or praised Israel during the campaign. If Trump would fight
for the populist/nationalist policies he promised, we figured that was as good
as we could get under the current System.
Turns out, Trump was “all talk and no action” on just about everything that appeared to be good about him, and immediately began appointing international Jews all over the place, firing civic-minded, paleo-conservatives from his ranks, directing
neocon bombing raids against Syria, donning a yarmulkah while performing high
profile rocking (with his whole family) at the Zionist wall in occupied Palestine
and allowing the worst Mammon-worshiping, Chamber of Commerce, extraction
industry whores in the Republican establishment to take over his administration
and rule Congress. He proved to be just another slick, lying politician. Essentially, we re-elected Bush-Chaney.
The “essential elements” of the Paris Agreement, to bring “all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its
effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so” and chart “a new course in the global climate effort,” are good and necessary. If anti-White, international capitalist forces have inserted planks in the agreement with an ulterior motive – and they undoubtedly have – those motives and their manifestation in the wording should be pointed out, opposed and changed. But there should be no objection to selling European and American made solar panels to Black Africans if it keeps China from building coal-fired power plants in Africa. There should be no objection to the federal government demanding that the Don Blankenships and Jim Justices of Appalachia end mountaintop removal coal mining, thereby employing more miners in traditional mining until we transition to renewable sources of energy.
True nationalists do not need volumes of scientific evidence to prove Blacks are very different from Whites. A ride on the Broad Street subway in Philadelphia would
be enough to convince. Nationalists tend to be smart, observant and have healthy instincts. Those same characteristics also make volumes of scientific evidence unnecessary to convince us that humans are contributing to global warming. Walking in July from a macadam parking lot into an adjoining woods, or running a lawn mower in the garage with the doors closed will do it.
Scientific evidence has great value and is responsible for the genuine progress of mankind. But those who lack the common sense and good instincts to see the obvious truth, and/or reject the science that proves it – whether racial or environmental – will be useless in the future struggle along the straight and
narrow path to European racial survival.
The Stark Truth show which is more is quasi Alt-Right, maybe Left Wing of the Alt Right has been having on a lot of major environmentalist.
This is an excellent article. A lot of on Alt-Right even especially Alt-Lite sites like Breitbart take a knee jerk reaction against the environment just to piss off the left. People need to follow sites like the Stark Tuth which have all the info they need but ignore the show because it is to independent or Avant Garde so the Alt-Righters prefer to have this image of Right Wing Chad Nationalism as opposed to adopted the best aspects of the left while retaining some level of nationalism. Alt-Left or Alt-Center or the Left Wing of the Alt-Right. Same applies to right wing Randian economics.
This message bears repeating, and should be a core Alt-Right talking point. If we can tone down the low-brow bigotry and replace it with rhetoric on sensible foreign policy and conservation, our ranks will grow exponentially.
Don’t forget the great struggle of all from 1922 – 1945. A worldwide effort to save western civilization. Delayed but not defeated
The minute the Soviet Union fell every Communist became an environmentalist. The goal is exactly the same: rule by intellectuals. They do not want any technical solutions to any problems. Their dream is a world where there is a shortage of everything and bureaucrats make the choices, exactly like the Soviet Union.
It’s called the Shortage Industry, and millions of people owe their livelihoods to it. They don’t care any more about the environment than people who called themselves socialist cared about working people, since they created conditions so miserable for working people they actually had to imprison them behind walls and shoot people who tried to escape.
Bureaucrats have a HORRIBLE environmental record. What makes anyone think they would do a better job with the global environment than they did with the Soviet environment?
We have to be very careful to distinguish between perfectly sensible environmental protections and feeding the Shortage Industry scam. They CALL themselves environmentalist but their goal is rule by intellectuals. It’s a scam just like the people who CALL themselves anti-racist are, in fact, simply anti-white. We’re not against a clean environment, we’re against the Shortage Industry SCAM.
Great article. This article reminds me that a good deal of the national parks around the world were created during the late 19th century to the early 20th century.
Almost all the major national parks in Africa, Across Asia, South & North America was due to Conservationists of the 19th and early 20th century. A good deal of the Conservation and Environmental policies revolved around protecting the species in these parks.
the third Reich had the highest standard of Conservation and Environmental policies and animal protection laws
Just great.. These soulless so called conservatives have left nothing but ruin and disaster in their wake. Their time is over. Time for change.
This needs to be incorporated into our image. People need to know that we won’t stand for that type of materialistic, sociopathic anti-environmentalism.
Another demonstration of the sad reality that Conservatism Inc., as some people quip, really does rely on intellectual mediocrities with little to them apart from reactionary contrarianism. Investment in environmental health is of great importance to the human species, and those who rail against “eco-Nazis” are generally contemptible. Obviously, it’s possible to take things overboard – and whether something like the Paris Accord is actually a solution is questionable – but the New Right must be respectful of nature with an eye to both the past and the future.
It’s terribly unfortunate that the Left has co-opted the matter. I’ve always found it tragic that Al Gore was the one to make great issue of the environment, as that exerted pressure on the so-called Right to countersignal.
Al Gore was also the face of NAFTA, GATT, and the “free trade agreements” – but the conservatives never bothered to counter-signal him on those things. Rush Limbaugh never called Al Gore a “trade-Nazi.”
This article implies that the Paris Accord was actually about saving the environment. It wasn’t. It was a globalist scheme to inflict further damage on American industry (white blue collar people) and transfer that industry to developing countries which are the global leaders in pollution. Current year “environmentalism” is anti-white, third worldist globalism. It has nothing to do with the environment. Trump deserves our thanks for shutting this down.
The Paris Agreement is about both: saving the environment and transferring industry to the third world, mainly for the purpose of increasing profits to the investor class. If the greatest profits were to be had by keeping industry in white communities (as it once was), that is where it would remain.
In that respect, The Paris Agreement is like the first months of the Trump administration. Trump had populists and nationalists along with globalists and Zionists surrounding him. As a rule, most treaties, conquests, wars and political campaigns are advanced by naked profiteers working with true idealists (good or bad) to advance their agenda. To make the lust for gold or power more acceptable to the general population it helps to join with those who are genuinely fighting for a noble cause, or what is perceived to be a noble cause.
Not all “environmentalism’ is anti-white.” The coal and timber companies sucking the wealth out of Appalachia are destroying every traditional white community in their path, leaving poisoned water and air, ruined landscapes, poverty, drug addiction and general misery. The locals who oppose this devastation are often led and organized by the liberal left because conservative, right leadership (more suiting to the locals’ nature) has been A.W.O.L.
I think that the environmental and economic (anti-capitalist) question needs to definitely be clarified. It would be interesting to take a poll on such subjects, much like the religious question of this movement.
Great article, and a subject that is not spoken about enough. The truth is right wing ranchers, farmers and hunters have done more for the environment than any urban SWPL gronola kid ever could/would do. Those who talk about sustainability without ever addressing overpopulation are merely virtue signaling. All empty platitudes about saving the environement from any Western (or Eastern) government is merely an thinly veiled cash grab.
Mahalos as we say here in Hawaii for the Pentti Linkola link. Presently reading Savitri Devi’s “Impeachment of Man” a truly remarkable read. Something by Linkola is next.
Should reproduction be a “human right”?
No. A breeding free for all results in Africa. I’m of the belief that eugenics is basically a good idea.
Another superb, classic article by AHAB. The only thing missing from it is a discussion of Madison Grant, the pioneering founder of conservationism and racialism in America. See, for example, the American Renaissance article “Madison Grant and the Racialist Movement” for more detail – https://www.amren.com/news/2010/07/madison_grant_a/
Good read. Thanks. Billy J – NY
Read Proctor “Racial Hygiene” and the chapter The Organic Revolution. Tells how the Third Reich outlawed ddt, lead paint, took measures against smoking, promoted home birth, herbal medicine, camping and so on. Pretty facinating that the left hijacked all that when they were always working for Mordor.
It’s easy to see why leftist nutters rally around the green banner. It is a great way to satisfy “muh feels” and feel like you have some sort of moral high ground. What, to these types, could be more moral than “saving the planet” from “capitalists” and the pollution they create, after all?
Environmentalism is an aberration in human history that will likely disappear in the long term.
Firstly, it is essentially a European construct. Where are all the “Green” parties are in the world? Virtually every single one of them is in Europe or a former colony of Europe. I am almost completely sure that no such movement exists on a political level in Africa, the Middle East or Asia. And only a few in South America (e.g. Brazil). As the world becomes less European due to third-world population growth, the appeal of environmentalism will continue to decline down to the level of non-existence. They will continue to lose at the ballot box. The baizuo will never convince third-worlders to care about these things.
Secondly, developmentalist countries such as China, India and Ethiopia have a vested interest in opposing environmentalism. They don’t want these kind of concerns impeding any potential growth. India’s Modi even said it himself. They will continue to favour capitalistic political groups in the West in order to leech more technology or resources out of them in the name of “free trade”, “foreign aid”, etc. And what can Green groups give them in place of those things? Nothing? Yet third-world political influence in our lands only continues to grow, e.g. through the UN, favouring the “corporate right”.
Ask yourselves why in the absolute hell we should care what happens to this planet at the current rate anyway? If the tides reverse we’ll soon be on other planets leaving the idiots behind. And if the baizuo/third-worlders win, then they will hopefully all die here like they deserve. Why “save the world” for them?
Ugh. Ayn Rand again. Her philosophy promotes white sterility; women’s natural function shows that women have a purpose in life that contradicts the model of their selfish hedonism that Rand’s philosophy sets up at its ideal.
Rand was an anti-White, welfare leeching loser.
Should have been gassed.
Sadly, the current Speaker of the House idolizes Ayn Rand.
I thought he idolized Bela Lugosi from the looks of him.
“Muh Globe on Muh Shoulders!”
Did anyone not know all this?
“Hey you stupid fucks, bet you didn’t realize that you don’t have to be a complete shitlib to care about the environment, did you?”
When you tend to Plants….
Nature can be quite annoying…..
But, being Nature myself……
….I can combat it……
The article was a bit more enlightening than your comment.
Madison Grant, author of The Passing of the Great Race (a very prescient book), was also a staunch conservationist.
Many years ago I was a member of the Sierra Club. Then one year a dissident organization, Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization, ran some candidates for the board who favored cutting immigration so we could stabilize our population. The candidates were all mainstream Democrats. The existing board demonized the candidates as racists and xenophobes and even ran Morris Dees as a fake candidate to draw votes away from the SUSPS candidates. Not one of them won. Once it became obvious to me that political correctness overran any real concern for the environment in the Sierra Club, I quit.
Jewism, the kol nidre pray, usury, the Talmud, liberalism, multi- multiculturalism, the media. cultural decline, anti-environmentalism, anti- Nationalism, pro Israel National ism, US congressmen with Israeli citizenship,Jews make up 2% of the Population and are 6% of Congress, the Frankfurt School, a one side version of history, Communism, the Fed — I can go on — What am I ?
I don’t know……
You tell me…….
Soldat für Christus
Christus war jüdisch…..
6% of congress and have made financial contributions, aka bribes, to most of the other ones
If you love your people you’re not going to allow them to be poisoned and their environment spoiled. That seems like a simple concept that everyone should understand.
CO2 is NOT a Pollutant………
I was making a general statement. I totally agree with you.
The Real Poisons are the PC Pop Cultural Memetic Conditioning…….
…..that have Brainwashed our People……..
We still have yet to Adapt a Robust Resistance……..
The Alt-Right is a Burgeoning Cultural Strain…..
May it Spread and Take Hold……..
But also mercury and BPA.
Wealthy whites do not love their people; they love their money and their lifestyle. They hate the vast majority of “their people” and would gladly see them poisoned and their environment spoiled.
(((You))) are lifetime banned from the Alt-Right……
The White Race is uniquely protective and loving toward nature. Among the many, many, beautiful things that will die with Whites, expect domesticated dogs to lose all quality of life and for many breeds to go extinct. Between Asian bugpeople, nogs, and Muslims, our beautiful doggos will be living a life of misery.
Well-loved pups are a white supremacist social construct.
Destroy the Planet with more CO2??
Science Basics for the Alt-Right…….
This absolutely needed to be said. It is NOT Marxist to advocate for the preservation of our ecosystems.
And thankfully to President Trump……
We’ll be having a LOT more CO2 emitted to the Atmosphere……
I have a Degree in Biochemistry……..
I understand Life Science…….
I don’t know about the rest of the Alt-Right……..
I also LOVE Nature…….
My Property is filled with a Variety of Perennials……..
I just planted my Tomato Plants last week and they’re Sprinting………
It’s one of my Passions…….
I also LOVE CO2…….
The Biosphere is BOOMING……….
Thank you, President Trump…….
Very sad news, Bob Whitaker died
Bob Whitaker never became a celebrity but he is probably more responsible than anyone for the renaissance of pro-white politics in the last decade. “The Mantra” is revolutionary and the best set of talking points the movement ever came up with.
The mantra is retarded but I guess it’s good to help reel in the <95 IQ crowd
^^ The Dunning–Kruger effect in action. ^^
He used the same troll on Radix.
Im sorry for triggering you. Apparently you’re personally enamored with a mantra literally written for retards.
You used the same lines when you were trolling Radix last year.
For the record, lest your modest intellect misconstrue my comment: the “anti-racist is code for anti-white” part is 100% on-point. It’s the “Asian countries for the Asians…” part that makes me cringe and pity Mr. Whitaker for the severe brain damage he must have incurred to make his mantra sound good to him.
Yes, you used the same troll on Radix. You have to tell everyone how smart you are because otherwise no one would have ever guessed.
“Everyone I disagree with is a troll: The Mantra fan’s guide to political debate”
I wasn’t “debating” you and most people who disagree with me aren’t trolls. Those with three digit IQs have no problem understanding that.
The language he introduced into pro-White politics is now used as second nature. The term “White genocide” and “anti-White” were the most widespread. Just yesterday, Info Wars had this as a header for one of their videos.
Is Bob influencing events from the afterlife?
The entire set of Mantra talking points is a cognitive coup, especially the simple way it exposes the double standards: “Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, White countries for everybody?”
He was a professional propagandist and wordsmith, and it shows.
He also did a great series of articles on “Anti-Mantra Pro-Whites” about the typical objections he often heard. For many people the pro-white movement is not about effective propaganda, it’s a way to signal something: how smart they are, how “radical” they are, which obscure authors they have read, etc.
He will be missed but the White Rabbit Radio people have been doing a fantastic job of continuing his work for the last five years.
With strong property rights comes sane ecological stewardship. Contrast privately managed lumber forests with open ocean commercial fishing. Lumber harvesters manage their crop wisely, avoiding rapacious depletion, whereas commercial fishers create a classic tragedy of the commons. The best way to avoid the tragedy of the commons is to avoid commons altogether.
Interestingly enough, the author of Tragedy of the Commons., Garret Hardin, was red pilled on race.
“In a 1974 essay in BioScience magazine, ”Living on a Lifeboat,” he argued against aid to famine victims in Ethiopia, explaining that sending food would only contribute to overpopulation, which he saw as the cause of the country’s problems.”
Not only does it contribute to overpopulation, it also undercuts the local farmers there. They go out of business because they can’t compete with zero prices. Without the food aid, they could fetch a reasonable price for their produce, and the local population would stay within sustainable limits, instead of exploding to 4 billion as projected in the next several decades.
Yes, Edward Abbey made a similar point in a rejected NY Times editorial opposing illegal immigration. Abbey was profiled in an excellent Radix essay a few years ago.
If only they would have had free market competition during the Potato Famine. Imagine all those excess Irish who the market would not feed who the market could have liquidated. And imagine the profits!!!
Likewise, after the fall of the Berlin Wall the market nearly liquidated hundreds of millions of excess Whites is the vast lands of Eastern Europe and Eurasia. If only the market would have been allowed to work its magic hand!!!
If only they would have had free market competition during the Potato Famine.
Yes! The Irish at the time were little more than indentured servants, so just as in feudal times, they did nothing more than subsistence farming, and relied on a monoculture at that. One potato blight was all it took to wipe them out.
Meanwhile, you can look back as far as the 13th century and see the “magic” of the free market in crop yields. Some yields near the larger cities of France and England were rivaling those of even the the early 20th century! That’s because the farmers there served a market, so they were motivated to innovate with techniques like three-crop rotation, the planting of pulses to restore nitrogen to the soil, and other such “magic.” That was a far cry from the hard-scrabble subsistence of sullen peasants under feudalism.
So yes, I would like to see a lot more of that kind of “magic.” What people can do when they cooperate peacefully can be so astounding that it is nearly indistinguishable from magic.
Ireland produced plenty of food to feed its people, All the butter, meat and grain was exported to England where the magic market gave the best prices to those illustrious “owners” of title deeds to the land that you worship. The owners upon which the Irish toiled the land.
You do understand that under your misguided ideology the greedy man at the banquet that I mentioned ends up owning all the land and resources and you end up his servant?
What? Opposing overpopulation makes one “red-pilled on race”? I really don’t think you’ve thought this one through.
Hardin didn’t just oppose overpopulation. He also studied and knew the reality of race and intelligence.
In nature when a herd etc becomes too populace for their ecosystem they starve.
Exactly. UC Davis Economic Historian Greg Clark wrote a book on why foreign aid is dumb.
Due to misplaced Christian altruism they’re now 2 billion African nigs. If nature had been able to take it’s course they’d be extinct
Not at all true. The logging companies in the Pacific Northwest had all the strong property rights they wanted, their shareholders wanted short-term profits over longer term conservation so we got clear-cut logging of vast areas with no thought past next quarter’s revenue.
Sure, I don’t suffer from the delusion that everyone will behave beautifully in a society with property rights. All I know is that more people behave abysmally in a society without them. When the British almost single-handedly invented property rights in the late 17th century, they became the most prosperous civilization in history.
I’m sure the shareholders were happy with the next quarter’s revenue, but I doubt they were as happy with the revenue from the quarter after that, since you can’t produce logging revenues from clear-cut land.
Property rights can also include clauses which prohibit practices leading to toxic runoff and ground water contamination, which violate the property rights of those around them. When you nail down the ground rules like that, property becomes even more valuable because it includes a legal guarantee against various environmental horrors.
I’m certainly not against property rights. But there is always the temptation to simply outsource all human problems to some sort of “objective” ideology: libertarianism, monarchy, democracy, socialism, etc. The idea seems to be that we can avoid making difficult judgements by appealing to some “objective” system that has all the answers in advance, we merely have to follow the process.
It simply never works in reality, you always have to come up with constant fine tuning, like rider clauses, and shoehorn them into the system, resulting in some sort of patchwork that barely resembles the original ideology anyway.
you always have to come up with constant fine tuning, like rider clauses
Right — my examples of rules against runoff and contamination are examples of exactly such “rider clauses.” The only simple ideology I propose is that you abide by the rules to which you agreed, or else. The rules themselves are multifarious and constantly evolving to reflect the complexity of human interactions.
What happened to all the people who lived on the land growing their crops, tending their garden, pasturing their animals on the commons, gathering their firewood in the forest and their water from the spring once it was “owned” by someone with a piece of paper and the government force to dispossess them?
The real tragedy was not that of the commons (a system of human organization that lasted for thousands of years) but that of rapacious capitalism and private property.
In a society with strong property rights, people are free to establish common areas which they own, and no one has the right to use force to dispossess them. Common areas can be viable in some cases, and people should be free to live that way when they choose. Carving up everything into little transactional cells is not always efficient, and isn’t always the best way to achieve happiness and abundance.
It is important to keep in mind what the definition of “ownership” is: an exclusive right of use or disposal. The people who (together) own the commons have the right to exclude governments and any other rapacious rascals, with force if necessary.
Not sure what you are saying but your defense of total, individual private property is bogus. The destruction of the corporate (not corporations) Medieval society so that land lords in London could tuck into the abundant whores, that is the children that were ran off their ancestral lands, is something we should all hold in contempt.
… defense of total, individual private property …
I didn’t restrict it to individual property. I very carefully and deliberately included an example of collective property, which you have ignored entirely.
You started this exchange with an example of people being growing their crops, tending their garden, pasturing their animals, gathering their firewood, and gathering their water from the spring. Then you said outside parties came in and dispossessed them. Dispossessed them of what? My answer is: their property. That’s why you used the word “their” in the first place, to indicate possession.
Property is the right to exclude others as you see fit. For example, my kitchen is my property. I don’t mind my family members raiding the refrigerator, but if a total stranger waltzes in and fixes himself a sandwich, we have a problem. I have the right to exclude him, at the point of a gun.
Surely the people in your example, living happily in their commons, have the right to exclude others from coming in. For example, they might all be fine with members of the community gathering firewood, but the minute an outsider from 20 miles away comes in and starts harvesting firewood, the villagers will object. That’s because they have a right to exclude outsiders.
That is called “property”. It is the right to exclude others from using a particular thing. How you can oppose that principle, when you yourself gave an example of its violation, is beyond me.
Now I’m sure you won’t mind if I help myself to a sandwich from your fridge ….
Mine, mine, mine…libtardism. You really need to read social history and understand how human societies function. People with attitudes like yours make me never want to return to the states.
Mine, mine, mine …
The people who complain the most loudly about selfishness in others are typically the most greedy themselves. They project their own greasy vices upon strangers, about whose characters they know nothing.
I wrote a post supporting the rights of the people you are defending, and all you could manage was to focus that small section of your mind actually engaged in comprehension upon one small thing: my desire not to have total strangers in my kitchen. “There!” your dim brain exclaims, “I’ve got him! I’ll tear into him for being a selfish ugly American!”
That’s all you had, aside from a tossed quip about reading history. I’ve read the history of successful societies such as the U.S. and Britain and I know full well what their advantages (once) were. You hold in contempt that which made them truly great.
So take your little slogans and your lazy, half-assed gotchas and go stuff yourself.
Therin lies your weakness. You believe like a fanatic in the Myth of Progress and start your history with the Enclosure Acts and Merchantilism. If you are not a jew you sure do think like one. The Empire of Shopkeepers is nothing to admire.
Myth of Progress
Are you seriously summarizing the entire history of innovations in medicine, farming, manufacturing, electricity, transportation, food storage, sanitation, information processing, etc. as a “myth?” That’s one hell of a myth that can lift millions of people out of squalor, poverty, servitude, and disease.
It refers to Progress with a capital P as being an end all be all religion. Like economics, science, the nation, and everything else we create it is there to serve us not the other way around. Pretty simple.
We want the best for our people. That’s it.
So we’re back to square one. “Government” and “collective” ownership of “the commons” is now simply called “private ownership by a group” – a distinction without a difference, merely a change of labels to fit into the abstract “private property” idea.
Say all the land in America is collectively owned by “the people” of America – there, now we have “private property.”
Libertarians say “no force or fraud” – but how do you define “fraud?” Well you need courts to make the judgements, so call them “arbitration” instead of “government courts.” How do you enforce property rights anyway? Well, you need men with guns – so the men form a posse, appoint someone to make rulings – there, now you have a “state” and courts.
Say all the land in America is collectively owned by “the people” of America – there, now we have “private property.”
If you say that all the land in America is collectively owned by all the people in America, that means anyone in America has the right to camp out in my back yard. They don’t. So no, we don’t have any sort of private property in that case.
How do you enforce property rights anyway? Well, you need men with guns …
… so the men form a posse, appoint someone to make rulings …
there, now you have a “state”
It depends on what the meaning of the word “state” is. If you mean that those men with guns have the right to force me to pay for their operations, or quarter themselves on my property, or to pay for some full-time gamer’s “universal basic income”, or pay for the health care of an obese stranger, or any other such horse feathers, then you can put me down as being against it — just in the off chance that my opinion counts for anything in such a regime. Other than that, I’m on their side.
… and courts
Courts are good. I would gladly pay my fair share of court costs. Courts adjudicate disputes between people, they settle issues of fraud and breach of contract, and they authorize the forcible incarceration or expulsion of those who violate the lives and property of others.
You do pay your share of court costs via taxes.
Yet you expect people without property to pay for the men with guns to enforce your property contracts. You expect people without property to pay for the men with guns to protect you from other men with guns. And when push comes to shove, libertarians will pay lip service to hard money while doing nothing but counter-signaling a Wall Street bailout. They will throw a fit over a welfare mom getting $500 dollars a month in food stamps but ignore trillions of new money created for Maiden Lane I, II, and III to finance REIs buying up all the property and forcing those without property to then pay rent or overpriced, subsidized real estate to the beneficiaries of the heavily subsidized finance system.
Property rights come after society; they are meaningless without society. In Latin America all land was owned by landowners who had received land grants from royalty and everyone else had to work as serfs for the landlords. Why would anyone consent to such a system?
Libertarians pretend that it’s them paying for a Basic Income – it’s not. The masses pay for libertarian’s “basic income” – the entire society subsidizes property ownership – property ownership is a social construct. No individual can truly own anything they can’t carry with both hands while running at full speed.
There are some serious people who have worked out these things, such as Curt Dolittle of the Propertarian Institute, who is more or less a property-supporting libertarian. But most libertarianism is simply a middle class post-hoc justification for their own government welfare checks.
When it comes to things like the environment, they have nothing interesting to say.
You do pay your share of court costs via taxes.
Even ignoring how seldom I use the courts, I estimate my share of court costs to be $214.75 per year. Let me know where to send the check. Problem is I pay well over 100 times that much per year, and I’m starting to wonder where that’s going.
Yet you expect people without property to pay for the men with guns to
enforce your property contracts. You expect people without property to
pay for the men with guns to protect you from other men with guns.
I expect no such thing, so you can take that right back. I’m not only willing to pay for such services, I insist on it.
They will throw a fit over a welfare mom getting $500 dollars a month in
food stamps but ignore trillions of new money created for Maiden Lane
I, II, and III to finance REIs buying up all the property and forcing
those without property to then pay rent or overpriced, subsidized real
estate to the beneficiaries of the heavily subsidized finance system.
Yeah, they will. Not me. If you want to talk to me about the bloody Federal Reserve, it will have to wait until another time. Meanwhile, if you’re referring to me, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
property ownership is a social construct. No individual can truly own anything they can’t carry with both hands while running at full speed.
I’ll keep that in mind when you come after my house and landscaping equipment. I’m gonna need lots of guns.
middle class post-hoc justification for their own government welfare checks
I don’t get government welfare checks. I also pay for police, who I do not expect to protect my life or property in any way.
You have the patience of a saint. I don’t think there is anyone more frustrating to try and reason with than a militant Rand bot. Even arguing with a communist or a neocon is less irritating.
You have the patience of a saint. I don’t think there is anyone more
frustrating to try and reason with than a militant Rand bot. Even
arguing with a communist or a neocon is less irritating..
As Spencer said recently, libertarianism and conservatism have just becomes excuses why White people aren’t allowed to engage in any sort of collective action, in our own interest.
It’s all just one unprincipled exception after another.
It’s unilateral disarmament by Whites. Everyone else is tribal, everyone else acts in their collective interests – but it’s “immoral” when Whites do it.
The entire intellectual edifice of Randian libertarianism is why Whites can’t be collectivist and work together (but Jews can, of course. Yet another unprincipled exception.)
Also the “fridge” quip falls apart on closer scrutiny anyway. Even the most hard core Communists made a distinction between “personal property” – like your fridge – and “private property” which means capital, productive land, the means of production, etc.
I own the patents to refrigerators, they are all my intellectual property, I’m merely leasing them to you. So by using my intellectual property you are granting me the right to go into your home and get a sandwich out of your fridge whenever I want – you are free to use a block of ice instead of my patented intellectual property.
This is exactly what I mean by people just switching around the labels to justify existing arrangements.
I assume craicher is talking about the traditional Catholic doctrine of “distributionism” – private ownership of property but common use of privately owned property. In that system the wealthy and powerful have both property rights – as well as social responsibilities to members of the community without property.
Again, Curt Dolittle of the Propertarian Institute does a good job of using analytic philosophy to derive property rights from natural law, but it turns out virtually the opposite of Ayn Rand libertarianism.
As far as racial reality goes, history showed us (March of the Titans) that property rights don’t save a race when they outsource labor to a racial outgroup. Keep all the property you want, once racial aliens are working the land (or the factories) your society and your racial integrity are just buying time anyway.
Most Whites aren’t going to go back to sharecropping and serfdom so if we are going to save the White race it’s going to take a lot of collective effort. Libertarians Whites who think they will survive in a Brazil like environment with high walls and barbed fences are fooling themselves.
Also the “fridge” quip falls apart on closer scrutiny anyway. Even the
most hard core Communists made a distinction between “personal property”
– like your fridge – and “private property” which means capital,
productive land, the means of production, etc.
I’m curious what those hard core Communists would think if I traded some of my personal property for landscaping equipment and then went about doing landscaping in exchange for compensation. Would they suddenly classify that equipment as a “means of production” and then demand that I distribute the benefits of its deployment to “the people?”
In that system the wealthy and powerful have both property rights – as
well as social responsibilities to members of the community without
If you look at the history of England in the 19th century, you will see clearly that as the people prospered, their generosity toward the poor expanded. The proliferation of Friendly Societies, free school tuition for the poor, and even a voluntarily financed coast guard are some examples. In many areas of England, school attendance was literally 100%, and that was at schools which charged fees. People subsidized the poor for a simple reason: they don’t like seeing pathetic barefoot illiterate waifs wandering the streets. Only a sociopath would be immune to such a sight.
I own the patents to refrigerators, they are all my intellectual property, …
Don’t even get me started on patents. They’re an abomination.
Again, Curt Dolittle of the Propertarian Institute does a good job of
using analytic philosophy to derive property rights from natural law,
but it turns out virtually the opposite of Ayn Rand libertarianism.
Holy smokes, now I have a reading assignment. Seriously, that sounds interesting.
As far as racial reality goes, history showed us (March of the Titans)
that property rights don’t save a race when they outsource labor to a
Yes, the Romans found that out, as did the American Southerners (my people).
Most Whites aren’t going to go back to sharecropping and serfdom so if
we are going to save the White race it’s going to take a lot of
collective effort. Libertarians Whites who think they will survive in a
Brazil like environment with high walls and barbed fences are fooling
Very well said, and I appreciate the reference to the best dystopian film of all time.
I will say though that the erosion of property rights which occurred here in the U.S. during the advent of “civil” rights is precisely what enabled the modern horrors of forced hiring quotas, “anti-discrimination” laws in hiring and housing, forced integration of schools, “hate speech” laws, welfare to support the endless breeding of chronic indigents, and the like — all the way down to the spectacle of being forced to bake cakes for people. Property rights and freedom of association go hand in hand, and any White nationalist who doesn’t get this should go onto youtube and listen to George Wallace’s 1964 speech at UCLA. He foretold exactly what would happen, and phrased it in exactly my terms.
The hard core Communists would do the same thing that hard core Capitalists do when they are given expropriated property by the government via force of arms – they would come up with a post-hoc justification why it was “really” ok due to whatever linguistic and ideological contortions are necessary. People act in their own self-interests and any ideology of philosophy is just an excuse to justify what they really wanted to do anyway.
The King of Spain conquered all of Latin America via force of arms, he gave the property to his noblemen, therefore the entire continent of Latin America is the personal property of Baron Julio Valquez XXIII – he owns it just as much as you own your fridge. All his peasants freely choose to work his land for peanuts in a perfectly free market system and anyone who complains is just a Communist.
So you’re carving out one exception … here comes another …
It’s a matter of scale, just like personal property vs. private property is a matter of scale. Libertarians all make shopkeeper-scale analogies – who has to bake cakes for whom, my lawnmower is the means of production, I’m trading my labor, etc. They make those small scale analogies because they work.
Now, stretch those analogies to continent-wide “personal property.” Take the right of private contracts to the level of (insert whatever moral abomination here.) Let’s discuss private property in the sense of “air rights” over Manhattan skyscrapers – all of a sudden the shopkeeper analogies break down.
At some point private property, libertarianism, and individualism won’t fix our problems. Free markets and capitalism work very well when selling shoes and hamburgers. It breaks down when you are discussing the water table, the Hoover dam, or old growth Redwoods in the Pacific Northwest – or air pollution. One size just doesn’t fit all.
… therefore the entire continent of Latin America is the personal property of Baron Julio Valquez XXIII … All his peasants freely choose to work his land for peanuts in a
perfectly free market system and anyone who complains is just a
That is funny. I do admit that taking an entire area by conquest does pose certain difficulties with regards to title search.
Now that you mention it, “my” property right here was formerly occupied by Cherokees before Andrew Jackson saw fit to kick them all out. But at some point one has to declare “bygones,” reset the books, and go forward on terms of mutual consent from here.
Libertarians all make shopkeeper-scale analogies – who has to bake cakes
for whom, my lawnmower is the means of production, I’m trading my
labor, etc. They make those small scale analogies because they work.
Sure. Any effing commie who says that my wife’s shop “belongs to the people” can go shove it, blunt end first.
Now, stretch those analogies to continent-wide “personal property.” Take
the right of private contracts to the level of (insert whatever moral
abomination here.) Let’s discuss private property in the sense of “air
rights” over Manhattan skyscrapers – all of a sudden the shopkeeper
analogies break down.
Yes they break down because it’s entirely different. People do need to establish air rights over Manhattan skyscrapers — it’s vitally important. And yes, that is a form of “property rights” in the sense that the people on the ground have a right to restrict air travel over their premises to certain well-established parameters.
Of course many people will be frustrated with me because I’m not jumping to their favorite conclusion, namely “And so because of that we must have an enormously powerful central state which issues money at will and taxes incomes at will, impoverishing people to the tune of trillions per year! It’s the only way!” Though I’m not ascribing that position to you because you seem a good deal more sane than that.
Tell ya what … roll back the tax system to the way it was in 1892 and I’ll stop bitching about it. Deal?
“You” (as in the abstract you) already jumped to your favorite conclusion, property rights as long as they work to benefit me and my scale of property and a powerful central government to enforce property rights in my interests. Let bygones be bygones the day before the exact date that I got my property, anything before that ignore.
It’s not that I disagree with what I assume is your basic sentiment, it just feels like it’s utterly misplaced. We aren’t under the threat of a Bolshevik government appropriating our lawnmowers and stealing sandwiches out of our refrigerators – we’re under the threat of racial extinction due to mass non-white immigration due to global corporation’s desire for cheap labor – global corporations that use the exact same arguments for “property rights.”
“If we’re not allowed to import cheap labor it’s no different than Communists appropriating our lawnmowers and stealing sandwiches out of our fridge!”
We’re talking about large scale destruction of the environment and the extinction of all Europeans on earth.
I just find worries about shopkeeper property rights utterly misplaced.
and a powerful central government to enforce property rights in my interests …
No, a thousand times no. It doesn’t take all that much “government” to establish title to my house or car. As for protecting those things, I’m pretty much on my own with personal firearms anyway.
We aren’t under the threat of a Bolshevik government appropriating our
lawnmowers and stealing sandwiches out of our refrigerators – we’re
under the threat of racial extinction due to mass non-white immigration
due to global corporation’s desire for cheap labor – global corporations
that use the exact same arguments for “property rights.”
Phenomena such as mass non-white immigration, global corporations, and environmental mismanagement are themselves enabled and sustained by a government out of control. Muslim immigration into Europe and U.S. could not be sustained without massive subsidies from taxpayers, along with draconian laws against freedom of association and speech. Global corporations are creatures of government, along with the banking, monetary, and regulatory systems which sustain their monopolies. Government management of wild spaces is a pathetic joke. It would be far better if private environmental groups, equipped with capital not taken away from them by government, would buy all those spaces (from whomever) on condition of preserving them.
We do face environmental destruction and the extinction of Europeans, and it has come with the growth of massively powerful centralized government. You can protest post hoc ergo propter hoc if you like, but I really think it’s propter hoc.
You and your guns against the entire population of Mexico? It takes a LOT of government to have borders, a first world military, and a functioning court system of land titles.
That’s just libertopianism (not even actual libertarianism.) Anything more complex than a farm or a wood shop takes a decent amount of coordination. Big corporations – and the big government that goes along with them – are necessary for complex interrelated economic coordination. It’s just fantasy to imagine some world where we have systems as complex as the internet without big corporations and big government. There is no historical context in which we have the complex modern economy we love so much without big corporations and big government.
You want to go back to the tax system of the late 1800s but no one is prepared to go back to the technology of the late 1800s. The universe where we have a modern economy and complex social and economic coordination with a minimal government and small business partnerships is a fantasy world – that simply did not happen in the real world.
The very technology we are using to communicate was birthed by big government, big military, and big corporations and subsidized by Big Empire.
The fantasy of American rural libertarianism falls apart the very second the Chinese decide to boat over after shelling the coast with their drones. Libertarian cowboys with their shotguns and a minimal government will do what exactly?
You’re setting up straw men when you say I don’t understand the need for military defense, or the need for the firm (a.k.a. corporation) in economic production. Ooh, you libertarian cowboys are too naive to understand fighter jets and military discipline. Please.
This idea that the government needs to take trillions in taxes because we have technology more advanced than in 1892 is silly. The idea that the government “invented the internet” and “got to the moon” implies that humans could not invent the internet or get to the moon without taxation is unsubstantiated. You are not accounting for the opportunity costs of extracting trillions of dollars of wealth away from the people who would otherwise use it, not to mention the enormous inefficiencies once it gets into the hands of government.
What you need to understand is what governments actually do with all that extorted money. They use it to undermine and enslave your race. Think of that the next time you extol the wonders of DARPA, NASA, and even the US military itself, which have all delivered a substandard and often counterproductive product. Oh DARPA sent some packets around for their own benefit at the expense of billions of dollars, sure. NASA went to the moon, but ladi-freakin-da we don’t have moon bases now do we? The US military spends all their time bombing the Middle East. I can do without that kind of “service”, thank you.
The reality remains: along with modern technology came large complex economic coordination via Big Corporations, large scale, technologically advanced large scale military via Big Government.
Small scale business partnerships did not get to the moon or to invent the internet. Libertarian cowboys and their guns did not create a world wide empire.
But libertarian ideologues want us to believe that it *could* have happened, and their arguments always fall back on small scale shopkeeper analogies. Half of the “small businesses” that the libertarians love to champion rely on large complex systems built and maintained by big business and big government.
Libertarians offer no solutions, just fantasy. Just like the GOP telling us if we just sell off all federal land to the highest bidders, all our environmental problems will be solved because the free market and property rights.
People have a hard time with large scale complex systems because they can’t keep the entire system in their heads at one time. So they tend to revert to “we need to make the government/business/whatever” smaller and simpler!
I never claimed that a small scale business partnership could establish a moon base. It would require a large (i.e., not small) scale business partnership — well capitalized I might add, which would be possible if government wasn’t always there sucking our veins like a vampire bat on a cow.
You actually think there are no opportunity costs to taking trillions of dollars away from the people who earn it, through taxation and inflation, plus racking up $220 trillion in debt on top of all that. In your world, it’s all upside! Otherwise we wouldn’t have all these wondrous large complex systems like fractional reserve banking, SWIFT wires (what a joke), space shuttles, “free” health care, MOABs, and like, routers and stuff! Why, if all that capital had been left with those who earned it, they would have pissed it away on moonshine and drag racing! Astonishingly, you hold this fantasy in your head while at the same time accusing those not gullible enough to buy it as being naive.
Statists offer no solutions, just the relentlessly compounding fantasy that extorting ever more money from my family and barking commands at us will make everything juuuuusst right for everyone else. Geez, at least when I pay taxes to support Muslim migrants, single moms, Section 8, Fannie and Freddie, Middle East bombing, and all the other government “services” needed to maintain an oh-so-complex sophisticated society, I at least retain the minimal shred of humanity required not to actually like it.
“$220 trillion in debt”
Libertarianism is intellectually bankrupt. It’s like an entire ideology based on those shopkeeper analogies.
“if all that capital had been left with those who earned it”
I’ve always found it most telling that the people I’ve known who whine the most about taxes and “big government” all make their money on defense contracts. There isn’t a single business in America that is not subsidized by the larger society – yet conservatives and libertarians all like to pretend to be John Galt.
That’s why all it takes is a few rounds of Socratic questioning to puncture the mythology. They loves to use glittering generalities like “limited government” and “earn” and “private property” to hide the reality – they are all beneficiaries of a very complex and interrelated social system.
The Triffin dilemma will not help Social Security and Medicare be solvent. So that little Snopes-y type thing doesn’t really help in reality, even though it’s all big-boy and such.
I’ve always found it most telling that the people I’ve known who whine the most about taxes and “big government” all make their money on defense contracts.
That’s not my experience, but then I don’t tend to cavort with the likes of defense contractors.
There isn’t a single business in America that is not subsidized by the larger society …
Ah yes, the old “You didn’t build that” trope. You know, because I didn’t single-handedly build the road to my shop, or invent the technology needed for phone calls, or even because I didn’t slaughter my own steer for steak, then I owe my entire business to the efforts of others, so they can flay me alive at will for the rest of my life. To which I say: No, Barack, I already paid for all that stuff, now leave me the hell alone. Moreover, I paid 10 times over so other people could live off my back, so go piss up a rope while you’re at it.
yet conservatives and libertarians all like to pretend to be John Galt
Yeah that’s more juvenile than Socratic.
They love to use glittering generalities like … earn …
Oh the gloves are off and the teeth exposed! The term earn is a “glittering generality!” So like when the guys came and did our landscaping, working their asses off for 6 hours, they didn’t really “earn” what I paid them because … government built roads and allowed the stringing of phone lines and auctioned off spectrum!
So you’re saying that, even after those guys paid taxes to pay for all that stuff provided by a piss-poor government monopoly run by entitled knuckleheads with no accountability to their captive customers, those guys didn’t earn what I paid them! Not only that, they actually owe more for the simple reason that I did pay them! So if they told you they wanted to keep the money that they earned, you would laugh at their glittering generality.
The temerity of you statist ideologues is astounding. You regard everyone, even total strangers, as your servants. There really is no difference between “left” and “right” — you are all a pack of losers who couldn’t produce a single milled screw if your lives depended on it, but who clamor for power and aim to make everyone else their personal bitches. Because complexity.
Social Security and Medicare are already solvent. The “debt” is a subsidy from the rest of the world. The “debt” is in dollars – there is no natural limit to the amount of dollars in the universe.
“Ah yes, the old “You didn’t build that” trope.”
Obama was right. Every business in America is subsidized by the larger society – no man is an island. The entire American system – including the American empire – is geared towards subsidizing business, markets, and property. Without all those subsidies, it would be one guy on his two acre ranch with a shotgun holding off the savages all by himself. Society exists before property rights.
I just listened to an interview with Kevin MacDonald and James Bowery on White people’s innate individualism, libertarians exemplify this. In a thread about the environment, on a site dedicated to the existence of White people, the first reaction of some is to talk about … tax rates and property.
No thought of the group, no thought of White people as a collective, it’s all just knee-jerk individualism.
And it’s moralizing – like a Sunday School lecture – and the analogies are all simplistic shopkeeper stuff – my refrigerator my lawnmower, my sandwich.
The milled screw is a good illustration- in the libertarian state, that is about the level of development. Forget those “routers” and CPUs – or nuke plants – they are for statists, apparently.
It’s all just one unprincipled exception after another. As we’ve seen, even the holy property rights only go back to the very minute “I got mine.” Intellectual property – toss that aside (unless you get your money from intellectual property, then of course it’s sacrosanct.)
“I got mine.”
Statists such as yourself are obsessed with a far more devastating principle: “I got yours.” Statists demonstrate a far higher level of selfishness than those who simply want to interact with others on a voluntary basis and respect each other’s boundaries — who in my experience are the most generous, magnanimous, and kind-hearted people on Earth. Statists, by contrast, are the most insatiably greedy gray-souled gollums to ever walk the planet.
I have no intention of forcing you into a White ethno-state. I’m all for voluntary association.
You’ll have to fight off the brown hordes yourself.
You’ll have to fight off the brown hordes yourself.
No way. People need to band together for things like that.
Yes into a collective called a nation which cannot tolerate greedy men getting to the banquet early, eating all the food and then claiming title to it.
What is this “greed” you’re always prattling on about? Who in your life is so insatiably greedy that he goes to an all-you-can-eat buffet, doesn’t pay for his food, and claims title to it as it passes through his intestines? Do you actually know people like this? If so, you need to find a better social circle.
A banquet not a restaurant. Shopkeeper mentality shines through.
I also don’t know anyone who would go to a banquet and behave like that. Autistic fixation on tiny irrelevant detail shines through. Also disdain for ordinary people making an honest living shines through.
“What is this ‘greed’ you’re always prattling on about…”
Well, for starters:
I just caught up with you and thanks for all the references. Yes, I’m intimately familiar with hedge funds, and have been asked to assist in an SEC matter on one occasion. Reducing the incidence and success of Ponzi schemes requires innovation in the techniques of accounting, multi-party control, asset and transaction validation, and the management of identity and reputation. Waiting for regulatory bodies to inform us that the horse has left the barn two years after the fact is insufficient. Their gears grind forever and the result is unsatisfactory.
Unprincipled exception number 54 …
Individual libertarianism for everything except this specific list of things that benefit me directly …
Property right except for the kinds of property (like intellectual property and patents) that I don’t own …
Land title goes all the way back to Andrew Jackson, because that is what benefited me … but no further …
Just keep your hands off of my lawnmower, my fridge, and my sandwich!
Why should anyone care about your property rights when you clearly don’t care about ours? Why should White people “band together” with you anyway? If you want White people to band together to protect you from the brown hordes, you’re going to have to cough up a bag full of Ron Paul Gold Coins – we don’t take Federal Reserve Notes!
… like intellectual property and patents …
The big problem with patents is they are prior restraint on innovators. James Watt obtained a patent on a steam engine which lasted from about 1760 to 1800. During those years, deployment of steam engines and innovation in their design languished. Almost all the engines installed during those years were the old Newcomen design not covered by the patent.
Finally in 1800 the patent expired, and people started to use the higher-pressure steam engines that Trevithick invented. The less than magnanimous James Watt thought Trevithick should be hanged for it.
Both James Watt and the Wright brothers squandered their time and energy chasing down patent offenses instead of producing good products. It was a pathetic spectacle really.
So now we’ve moved from a moral argument to an argument of practicality, yet another post hoc rationalization of self-interest.
One could simply use the same argument to suggest that environmental protection of the old growth Redwoods are a prior restraint on innovative development.
Or one could use the same argument to declare that collective/corporate (“firm”) ownership of the Redwoods necessitates short term profit taking, leading to environmental destruction, therefore there are interests more important than commercial property rights.
Maybe it’s best to simply drop all the moralizing Sunday School arguments altogether and acknowledge that everyone is acting in their own self-interests and that individual property rights sometimes take second place to other interests. What is the point of relying on paper-thin rhetoric about property when the reality is all sides are willing to jettison them the minute some other interests are more important?
Back to my original point, libertarianism and property rights won’t save the Redwoods.
Libertarians have never noticed that all brown countries are poor and brown people always vote en masse for socialism.
A libertarian, like all wordists/idealists (Socialists, Christians, followers of the Religion of Political Correctness) relies on a set of words that he believes are never wrong. He is relieved of making hard moral choices. He implements a solution based on his holy words and, if it doesn’t work out, it’s never because the words were wrong. We did it wrong, or we didn’t do it enough. So they double down. They demand everyone and everything adapt to the words. If reality doesn’t agree with the words, we have to change reality. Any questioning of the words must be banned as a threat to public order. The wordist cannot grasp that reality is much too complicated and unpredictable to be anticipated by any set of words, no matter how brilliant those words are.
The wordist/idealist model contrasts with the model we have actually used for millenia which we could call conscious evolution -examining a situation, thinking about it, discussing it, proposing a solution, discussing that solution, trying it out and evaluating the results. We only make incremental changes that are too small to destroy the whole system because WE COULD BE WRONG. Yes, we look to writings for guidance, but we don’t regard them as infallible.
I completely agree with the “Wordist” critique – that is exactly the problem. People use complex words and ideologies to hide what is just simple self-interest.
As I said in an earlier comment, there is always this temptation to outsource human choice and judgement to some sort of “objective” ideology that has all the answer in advance, all we have to do is simply follow the process.
In reality, this means that people who are good at manipulating language simply swap the labels around (“intellectual property,” “initiation of force,” etc.) to lead to whatever their desired outcome was anyway, and people who actually take the ideology seriously put their own self-interest on the back burner because they desperately want to feel “moral” for following the dictates of the ideology.
Ideologies are like bullsh*t – it takes a lot more time and energy to “debunk” bullsh*t than it does to create bullsh*t.
True, scam artists use wordism/idealism to run their scams. But they only work if lots of people BELIEVE the ideology. The scam artist takes advantage of well-meaning people. As you say, whites following the Suicide Cult of Political Correctness are not doing what’s in their best interest.
As soon as you have agreed to be ruled by a set of words, the priesthood that gets to interpret the words are the people in power.
Would it be correct to say what you are calling “wordism” started with the Chosenites and their “holy word of the burning bush”?
Wordism is loyalty to a set of words. It is the alternative to tribalism, loyalty to your own kind. A wordist says all problems will be solved if we follow this set of words, this Universal Truth. Wordists claim to be universalists, but since there are millions of Universal Truths and only a few thousand tribes, they are even more provincial than tribalists.
Most religions are wordist. Marxism and Political Correctness are wordist. Those who say the US Constitution is a set of universal principals for all mankind and not an agreement among white people are wordists.
“I never claimed that a small scale business partnership could establish a moon base. It would require a large (i.e.,
not small) scale business partnership — well capitalized I might add, which would be possible if government wasn’t always there sucking our veins like a vampire bat on a cow.”
There you go again Pat, with your libertarian “…as the people prospered, their generosity toward the
poor…” attitude. Now you’re saying “their generosity toward investing in our common future (for a generous personal profit).”
What is wrong with the old model of everyone in the parish (or nation) contributing,according to their means, to build the communities cathedral (or moon base)? Why should the wealthy (often despicably gotten) few be the sole patrons of culture and progress, while always demanding a handsome, personal profit in return?
In young Pat’s world most people will be beggars on Daddy Big Buck’s doorstep if they are lucky. Most will have to beg at the back door.
He would not allow his fellow White men to draw water from a spring on his property (an ancient Medival right). But would have you beg water from him. Meanwhile he demands your daughter’s dignity in return.
Pretty sure the Cherokees are not mutually consenting with you. You live in a dream world.
I don’t see a lot of Cherokees up here, least of all Cherokees agitating about what happened 170 years ago and trying to hunt deer in my back woods. But yes, it is quite like a dream world up here, very nice indeed.
Let’s ask them if they consent to your title to lands they consider their ancestral lands. Fact is there is no right to any land anywhere for any people. It all rest on force. You can pretend you have a right to it till the sun goes down.
When we secure our homelands it will be by force not because we have a right to them. You may argue you have a right to something you create such as a work of art, a homemade tool or something of that sort but you have no right to earth, water and air that you did not create. You must take it and hold it. Therefore your title is but a piece of paper that only has worth as long as you have force (the government that you are loath to pay taxes to) to hold onto it.
Put that in your Cherokee pipe (I bet they hate you) and smoke it.
Therefore your title is but a piece of paper that only has worth as long
as you have force (the government that you are loath to pay taxes to)
to hold onto it.
That’s where you’re flying off the rails. You assume that I’m not willing to pay for the security needed to defend this territory against mass invasion, and that I’m not willing to pay for title registries and courts. Your assumption is incorrect.
And another thing, what makes them “your woods”? Nothing but guns and jails for those who do not accept it. Look at what happened to the Whites of Haiti or more recently Zimbabwe when they no longer had the guns and jails to hold onto “their” property.
And 170 years ago is but a drop in the bucket. The Irish were in conflict with the English for 800 years. Eastern Europeans peoples were in conflict with Germanic and Nordic peoples for well over 5 centuries. The Jews have been in conflict with Europe for 2000 years. Do you think the Cherokee have forgotten and forgive your (and our) ancestors?
Libtardism is just as stupid as communism and founded and supported by the very same people.
And another thing, what makes them “your woods”? (followed by a history of conquest)
Now what are you on about? They’re my woods because I bought them from the previous owner. They were his woods because he bought them from the owner before him. Etc. etc. until you get back to the first guy who got title to the land after Andrew Jackson kicked the Cherokees out.
Are you suggesting that I go seek out the great great great great grandson of a dispossessed Cherokee, put a yoke around my neck and don a T-shirt saying “So sorry,” and tell him “Here, take this house and land?”
Let me tell you something that’s not going to happen: that.
What is wrong with people on the internet? Are they actually as contentious and silly in their real life conversations as they are on Disqus? If so, how do they function in human society without being shunned straight to the curb?
That is a long and illustrious line of owners going back what? 170 years? But that is not the point. The point is your libtardian belief in the moral superiority of your so called title to land.
And you support a government as long as it exists solely to enforce your title to land. Everyone else can beg as far as you are concerned. The government is nothing but your personal enforcer of your will and desire. That is anathema to civilization.
My will and desire is that you stay off my lawn. I am sorry you are so fixated on using the land around this house for your own particular purposes, but that’s your problem, not mine.
I kindly suggest that you let go of your envy, as it is a very deadly sin. Focus instead on acquiring some property of you own, through diligent and skillful effort. It will benefit others, it will benefit your own soul, and you will find it far more satisfying than endlessly caterwauling that what other people have should be subject to your own desires.
How far do you reckon your “lawn” (something the uppity ups in England had and I assume you are not descended from them. Your ancestors had a yard that was mostly dirt because it was trampled by the animals that you needed to survive but let us pretend you are an English gentleman with a lawn) extend? Where does your property end and my rights to movement or water or firewood or survival begin?
It’s like my Dad always said, there is no more land being made. I other words it is finite.How many of our people do you think are going to be able to own land? How realistic is that. This is not the 18th c. frontier. Wake up.
Where does your property end and my rights to movement or water or firewood or survival begin?
Once again you are fixated on using what other people have to satisfy your own desires. That is the very definition of greed. Rarely have I witnessed such brazen and unashamed selfishness. If you want some water, firewood, or food, you might consider offering something in exchange for it instead of petulantly demanding that everyone else serve you. Problem is, if you are this bratty and self-centered in real life, I can’t imagine what you could have to offer. Your fixation on getting something for nothing is holding you back.
You appear not to be able to reason rhetorically. I am not wanting to use “your” firewood, water or food. I’m speaking for our people (or mine, since you are a radical individualist, I guess you have no people). That we cannot tolerate greedy men who keep all the firewood, water and food for themselves as it appears you believe is just and right. Speaking metaphorically. You get it?
Are you really thick in the head?
I am not wanting to use “your” firewood, water or food.
Phew, what a relief. I was beginning to think you were gonna raid the place at any moment. Glad to see my fears were unfounded.
Edit: In the future, you might be more careful when using the word “your.” I thought you actually meant what you said.
Abstract thought is something us Whites are capable of. On second thought maybe you are one of those Cherokee?
You asked me point-blank “Where does your property end and my rights to movement or water or firewood or survival begin?”
We Whites are generally quite good at using basic English. We also tend to be pretty good at clearing up inevitable misunderstandings in a cordial way. You should try it sometime.
“I was beginning to think you were gonna raid the place at any moment”
No you weren’t – you didn’t mean what you actually said. No one at any time made any claims on your backyard, your lawnmower, or the sandwich in your fridge.
What actually happened was that you threw a fit at the sight of White people ignoring your Libertarian ideology and discussing conservation of the environment.
It was like watching slaves running off of the Randroid plantation, so you lectured everyone like a Sunday School teacher about what it’s wrong to steal sandwiches from other people’s kitchens and wove conspiracy theories about Bolsheviks coming to steal your lawnmower which you just wanted to use to trade your labor for woodscrews.
Most people here have listened to Libertopian fanatics for decades, you aren’t telling us anything new at all. When confronted with actually complex details, like petrodollars, banking, borders, conservationism, patents, imperialism, ethnic conflicts, you just punted and went back to good ole’ boy moral posturing about the deer in your backyard and how you just want to be left alone.
White Nationalists are thankfully growing wise to your type, your type were always the first to sell a house to a Negro, first to open the borders to cheap labor, and first to stab the community in the back for narrow minded self interest – all the while posturing as morally superior because “muh individualism.”
Libertarian ideologues have nothing to offer the White Nationalist movement, in fact, they have been the primary faction opposing us. It was a Libertarian fanatic that tired to get Spencer kicked out of a restaurant recently.
No you weren’t – you didn’t mean what you actually said.
Of course I didn’t. The guy was droning on senselessly about taking firewood off my land and drawing water from my well. When he clarified that he didn’t mean me personally, I expressed mock relief, as if I actually care.
To be clear, since you mentioned ethnic conflict, I’m well aware of them, which is why I oppose all manner of forcing people together. I know that sounds all libertarian and whatnot but I still oppose it.
The rest of your post is you throwing out wild assumptions about my propensity to sell a house to a Negro, hire a Mexican to hang sheetrock, and somehow stab the community in the back simply as a result of earning a living. Your assumptions are based on nothing but your own unmoored imagination. Incidentally I don’t think anyone should force you to sell your house to a Negro, unlike approximately 93% of the people in the Western world who think you should, but I’m sure that counts for nothing with you because once again, I’m phrasing it like a “libertarian” instead of calling for draconian measures issued out of hallowed marble halls. God you people are as pushy and arrogant as Union soldiers.
“Jim Crow laws are wrong because they force people to segregate even when they don’t want to.”
“It’s amazing how government distorts human relations with force.
Consider the East Louisiana Railroad, which back in 1892 actually wanted
to have mixed-race passenger cars because it was more efficient than
having Whites Only and Blacks Only. But no, the State of Louisiana said
they *must* have separate cars for Whites and Blacks. There were
similar laws elsewhere demanding separate seating areas in restaurants,
or forbidding the hiring of cheaper Black laborers.”
You are correct, your libertarianism means nothing to me, just like your moral posturing means nothing to me. I categorically reject your morality, it is of no interest to me and I find your Sunday School lectures about property to be equally pointless.
I only hope some of the people reading our exchange will realize the waste of time it is to take school marmish libertarians seriously.
You conveniently omit the flip side of those two arguments you cite, where I equally condemn laws enacted in the exact opposite direction.
But you don’t like that kind of complexity. You like things like “petrodollars,” which you threw out to wow me like a country bumpkin watching a James Bond movie. Besides, why are petrodollars a good thing? They’re a creation of the Federal Reserve — a bona fide Jewish conspiracy against the public if there ever was one. But evidently that’s just part and parcel of living in a complex society. Thanks Sadiq.
It doesn’t matter – you place your ideology over the survival of the White race, so to you it doesn’t matter if Whites go extinct or not, as long as there is no “force or fraud” involved.
Your ideology and its moral justifications are just a waste of time, it’s just another in the long line of excuses why White people can’t act collectively in our own interests.
Ironically, I’m usually considered a bona-fide “anti-semite” but I’ve always found the idea of the Fed being a “Jewish conspiracy” to miss the mark. The real “Jewish conspiracy” is goldbuggery and the autistic ideology of praxeology. Austrianism has likely done more to hurt Whites than the Fed. It’s yet another complex of verbal gibberish, another garden-path (((those))) with a high verbal intelligence have used to lead White men into dead ends.
No, our economic problems are not due to fiat or fractional reserve. Our economic problems are due to racial diversity – whether that is “forced” integration or voluntary, it all comes out in the same way.
“…I don’t think anyone should force you to sell your house to a Negro…”
I think we need an Aryan ethno-state where the peoples “big government” will be able to force individuals to NOT sell their house to a Negro.
We’ve been had, Patrick Chkoreff is not pro-white, just look at his comment history. He complains on AmRen that racial segregation was a government imposition on liberty, that segregation was economically inefficient, and praises George Wallace for “backing off of the forced segregation forever platform.”
He’s functionally an anti-white – his Ayn Rand ideology is more important to him that the White race, and White interests come second to his ideology. Asian wife? Or maybe a (((wife?))) Half breed kids?
“Jim Crow laws are wrong because they force people to segregate even when they don’t want to.”
He’s just wasting everyone’s time, he won’t actively advocate for White interests – all that matters is abstract “libertarianism.”
“Free markets and capitalism work very well when selling shoes and hamburgers. It breaks down when you are discussing the water table, the Hoover dam, or old growth Redwoods
in the Pacific Northwest…”
Exactly, let alone the foreign exchange currency market!
“…as the people prospered, their generosity toward the poor expanded.”
Most of the working poor would rather have economic justice, a sharing of the wealth, than a generous hand-out from those who are clever at getting more than their fair share.
Too bad Huey Long was shot dead by a Jew:
“Huey Long – ‘Share the Wealth” – 1935
“Share Our Wealth”
Yea, I got the Banquet story from him. I remembered reading about it in college.
Those villagers should have read Ayn Rand and got themselves a mealy mouthed lawyer from London.
The article is about the environment and there can be no doubt that the transition from the Medieval system to exclusive private property was a catastrophe for the environment and in the end for native White people of Europe. A few prospered at the expense of an entire civilization and way of life. One that was in every respect far superior to the triumph of materialism.
Yea, let’s privatize the oceans, beaches, parks, air and space. That will solve all our problems!
“…The arrival of the N&W Railroad allowed for the timber to be shipped east, further accelerating the rate of the state’s deforestation.
At the turn of the century, non-residents owned over half the land in Mingo County, West Virginia; as was the case in several other coalfield counties.
Observing this problem, William MacCorkle, West Virginia Governor, warned the state legislature in his inaugural address on March 4, 1893, that ‘the state is rapidly passing under the control of large foreign and non-resident landowners.’ He cautioned that ‘the men who are today
purchasing the immense acres of the most valuable lands in the state are not citizens and have only purchased in order that they may carry to their distant homes in the North the usufruct of the lands of West Virginia.’
MacCorkle, the son of a Confederate Major and sixth consecutive Democratic governor of West Virginia witnessed his dire warning prove true.
Within seven years, destructive logging techniques had removed half of the state’s forests. Nearly all of the state’s timber resources had been exhausted within two decades.
For the first time in history, West Virginia was viewed as an eyesore. One visiting writer described the state as, ‘a monotonous panorama of destruction.”
You need to
spend some time in Southern West Virginia or Eastern Kentucky, Pat. Take a look
at the “commons” there and then compare them to the vast holdings of “privately
managed lumber” and coal areas. (It helps to be familiar with the flora and
fauna that naturally occurs there – or should occur there.)
Pat, you need to spend some time in Southern West Virginia or Eastern Kentucky. Take a look at the “commons” there and then compare them to the vast holdings of “privately managed lumber” and coal areas. (It helps to be familiar with the flora and fauna that naturally occurs there – or should occur there.)
In young Pat’s utopian world everyone is a small land holder tending to their forest like they would to a newborn babe. He does not grasp international capital. The fact is the, or a government, is the only arbitrator we have between the good for the society, and us, the rapaciousness of international capital.
I just hate people who don’t pick up their beer cans and shotgun shells. There is a special place in hell for those non-humans.
A good practice is to carry a trash bag when you’re out taking a walk and pick up garbage along the way. Those of us raised by good mothers can help mitigate the damage from those who were not.
Some good historical points here, but the fact is that Global Warming is a lie and fraud that is being used by the Left as one more lever to impose tyranny. Once it became obvious that Global Warming simply wasn’t happening it morphed into the lie and fraud of “Climate Change.” The Left is constantly having to change their terms and definitions because they are constantly being exposed as nothing but cynical power grabs. And that is all that the Paris Climate Accord is; a naked antiWhite power grab. Scientists funded by the Left are constantly being found to have falsified and distorted data.
Trump’s rejection of the Paris Climate Accord was exactly, precisely the correct thing to do. When it comes to conservation, we do NOT need to swallow Leftist lies any more than we should with any other issue.
Trump’s shredding of Paris was correct, but Trump is a NYC trust funder who has probably never spent a night outdoors in his life. His position on the environment is abysmal. One can be against Paris while still promoting conservation.
You are wrong.
Liberals pretend to care about environment, but actually dont do anything to protect it. Man made global warming has not been proven with proper scientific experiment, therefore I consider it a scam. Conservatives dont care about environment at all.
It is precisely for that reason, that our victory is inevitable. Jew world order needs perpetual growth to continue its existence and nothing can grow forever. We are deeply in overshot and collapse is only matter of time. And when that happens our time will come.
I used to call myself an “eco-fascist” at parties. It always threw “liberal” chicks for a loop. “Eco” was obviously good, but “fascist” was kind of scary … then again, no one has ever had a fantasy of being tied to a bed and ravished by someone dressed as a liberal.
How many females have ever fantasized about being ravished by you?
A number greater than zero.
Allegheny Mountin School
I’ve seen jigs at Cracker Barrel.
Earth First! was founded by a radical right wing anti-immigrationist, Dave Foreman:
If I had not read Foreman’s “Man Swarm and the Killing of Wildlife” I certainly would never have ended up alt-right. On the plus side it really helped me get over a great deal of leftist nonsense about our basic human nature and opened my eyes to environmental devastation mass immigration bring to our lands. On the negative Foreman chucks hard on race in his introduction. He says he has a brother with a Hispanic wife and children so he can talk about immigration. That got me to thinking about us Whites without little half breeds in the family? Do we get to talk about immigration as well?
Great article. Environmentalism is definitely an issue we should be embracing.
The weakness of ethnostate environmentalism (econationalism) as opposed to left-environmentalism is that the former only makes claims upon the environments of certain regions, whereas the latter makes claims upon the globe. Generally speaking, people who care about the environment care about African elephants as much as they care about Alaskan wolves. The more compelling version of right-environmentalism is the paternalist euro-imperial mindset of the 19th century, where the idea was to conquer certain naturally spectacular exotic landscapes in order to protect them from modernity.
It seems to me that this issue can be easily solved by realizing that local beauty can’t survive global catastrophe. Changing temperatures aren’t exactly doing Yellowstone any favors, for example: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/11/yellowstone-and-climate-change/
“I realize that some folks in the alt right foolishly want to wash their hands of the “global south” forever”
Except for the part where left-environmentalism is feverishly working towards destroying the planet. All of their policy prescriptions make the situation worse even if you accept all of their premises.
The official dogma of the Green Party USA lists “ecological wisdom” as only one of the grabbag of Cultural Marxist obsessions.
The Watermelon Party: Green on the outside. Red on the inside. That’s the story on the Green Party at this point in time.
Years ago I dabbled in the anarcho-primitivism movement. I was quickly expelled from a significant internet forum for not toeing the feminist line. IIRC I had called an ex-gf a “crazy bitch” and this did not sit well with the eco-kommisars
Additionally, part of this article I agree with and part I don’t. I think it is wise to develop domestic energy sources (oil, natural gas, and coal) for defensive purposes. One big advantage the US has over other countries is our bread basket. We have always been able to produce surpluses of food which served us well during wars.
Job opportunities for blue collars whites are drying up. Even if trump exits nafta completely more factories will stay here but eventually a good amount of those jobs will be automated. Domestic energy production affords blue collar whites (especially skilled tradesmen) with job opportunities and prospects.
We must be careful about becoming too environmental or else we will hurt ourselves more than we help ourselves and the environment.
I agree that domestic resources are an advantage that should be developed, but, since you mention the bread basket: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-bread-basket-shifts-thanks-to-climate-change/
We can never run out of useful work – our issue is employment, “jobs.” In America, developing domestic energy sources is pushed into the future for strategic reasons – the US’s reserve currency status is predicated on foreign energy supplies being traded for dollars, and few Americans will be prepared for the loss of that (see: The Triffin Dilemma.) There is a self-interested reason to deplete the Arab’s oil while leaving our alone for as many generations as we can get away with.
As “capitalism” is essentially a 19th century pseudo-science, why not just forget about it and move to a Basic Income?
Oh right, we can’t, because of mass immigration and multi-racialism. Yet another reason why we can’t have nice things.
“Because that’s like socialism bro. Fucking lazy people need to get jobs or else starve.”
I’m all for the environment, but that Paris agreement was awful.
Here’s an idea: we infiltrate environmental circles and push the idea of lower levels of immigration because over development hurts our environment.
Good idea. But rich Jews have already captured environmental movements. Read about David Gelbaum and the Sierra Club.
Yeah What I mean is just commenting on articles/Facebook under fake names that give the impression of being a legit environmentalist while questioning/promoting lower levels of immigration.
We of course can’t make it racial just merely, “we are turning green fields into parking lots and apartment buildings! If we adopted a more sustainable level of immigration we wouldn’t have the need for this development. More greedy capitalists manipulating our immigration system for profit!”
I think this opens the discussion up on immigration amongst those who are left of center and potentially splits their faction up which will of course be to our benefit.
idk if they care enough about environmental signaling to give up their helping the less fortune signaling but we could maybe find ways to point out they aren’t really doing whats best for the environment and possible pull it away from the left
Foreman writes about him without bring up him being a Jew.
To some writers, race and the JQ are irrelevant. We’re all the same!
Roy Beck of Numbers USA has pushed the anti-environmental aspects of mass immigration for years. So has the doctor who heads the social compact group.
I like Roy, but, he also thinks that Blacks are going to understand how much they are being hurt by mass immigration—lots of luck on that one Roy boy.
From my understanding Roy has been very careful to not have his organization associated with “racism”. I question whether someone who is as fervently anti immigration as Roy is if he is not a bit of a race realist as well.
As far as I’m concerned anyone who heads a movement/organization must lead no stone unturned in regards to reaching out to all factions who may be supporters of theirs. So he may very well be crafting arguments to appeal to select groups of individuals (blacks in this example).
So has Dr. Tanton, he’s the real brains behind the founding of all of these groups like Numbers, but the SPLC hates him too.
Glad you brought up Dr Tanton. Learned about him after Dave Foreman.
Nigs don’t care about jobs, they want gibs and white genocide
Good idea except that we should start to build up our own environmental groups to avoid purges like the one the Sierra Club underwent.
Yes we need our environmental groups. They should focus on immigration, and the negative impacts of growth.
Why not invade their space like the Trump movement did with the GOP? Force them to either recognize the negative environmental
effects of third world immigration or to throw us out because we don’t agree with them, that the American heartland should become less white and Christian. It would be good media coverage for us and interesting to see their vote totals in the next election when we run candidates as nationalist greens.
We’re way ahead of you: we’ve been promoting that idea for nearly five years:
Fucking finally. Anti-environmentalism is still one of the stronger strains of boomer cucservatism left in this movement. May it die a swift and speedy death.
Nature isn’t kind, it just is, and sentient beings need to live in harmony with it and adapt or they perish and often they perish anyway. Fascism understands the natural order, jews being semites create deserts.
Environmentalism is about CONSERVING nature, thus a conservative concern by its very nature. We need to occupy this position, so Trump’s move was wrong – again.
What move are you talking about? How was it wrong?
Ernst Haeckel believed in the literal transfer of the laws of biology to the social realm. Adhering to biological laws means man would live to compliment nature, not contradict it. Very important that the thesis of this article is spread- environmentalism is not exclusively some leftist hippie issue.
Environmentalism goes far back in European history. The Germans set up forestry laws in places like Nuremberg during the Middle Ages. Germany was where forestry was invented. As American forests were being decimated, Gifford Pinchot went to Germany to study forestry. Pinchot was the definition of a well born WASP. Teddy Roosevelt tasked Pinchot with creating sustainable National Forests for logging so America would have resources in the future.
The environmental movement was a White movement formed by the same people who restricted immigration in 1924. Suffice it to say that environmentalism has been hijacked by the left, who are now too afraid to attack illegal immigration and the consequent degradation that millions of immigrants have on the environment.
The Germans have always appreciated nature, worshiped it.
So much so that they hike in the nude! Freikörperkultur uber alles!
Puritanism and Victorianism come from England,lol
Yes. And most of the weird cults in American history (Puritanism, Great Awakening, Abolitionism, Temperance, Civil Rights) come from New England Puritans.