Alexander Knepper, ineffectual intellectual
The problem with Knepper is his whole approach to politics is a series of “if, then” propositions. He’s what we call “a theory monster.”
I favor a fairly open immigration system in principle, but not while we have this welfare state.
So “if” we got rid of welfare, he’d be in favor of open immigration. Is he anti-immigration since we have a welfare state? Does he support VDARE and the Minutmen and FAIR? No. It’s all about keeping his theories straight, about toe-ing a certain line. I hope you’re at least getting paid for it, Mr. Knepper.
I want to be perfectly clear that I am entirely consistent in my philosophy: I condemn all forms of collectivism, including all claims based on ‘ancestry.’
Yeah, well multiculturalism has forced collectivism on us, and as individuals we are getting cut down. Maybe you don’t see what’s really happening out there. We can’t afford to be pristine angels of Ayn Randian individualist perfection, in a multicultural hell hole that we didn’t ask for. White collectivism is our only defense, and it’s one I believe you’ll end up resorting to yourself.
I can tell you that the energy of the White collective is with our view, not yours. You are going to begin to sense this in the coming years, as the growth economy withers away and we have to survive in a contracting economy, the automatic society becomes manual again, and you have to count on White people to survive.
David Frum wrote speeches for Bush in the run up to the Iraq War. He coined the term, “Axis of Hate.” He’s part of the war crime cabal that launched the long wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you realize that? He’s not just some guy who gets on NPR to hawk the phony-con neo-con “side” of the argument. He was the official inciter to drive the Americans to attack some hapless goat herders half a world away. He’s a real rat of a man.
It’s rather interesting that this former presidential speechwriter and genocide justifier/inciter recruited a little team of college kids to try to “keep us on the fringe,” to quote Knepper.
The forces of history are going in our direction. It’s not about “consistent philosophy,” but rather raw reality. America is in deep shit on so many levels, mostly caused by misgovernance and mismanagement, and the reason we have been misgoverned, mismanaged, and driven to ruin is because the people who rule us don’t feel any tribal or national connection to us.
We are driven to ruin by the most extreme collectivists in the history of mankind; of course we have to become collectivists ourselves. It’s like when one army develops the longbow; the other army better make good shields to block the rain of arrows as best they can, and if possible, develop their own longbows.
So we are becoming collectivists out of raw necessity. That’s all there is to it.
David Frum wrote speeches for Bush in the run up to the Iraq War. He coined the term, “Axis of Hate.”
Minor correction, it was “Axis of Evil.” MR/OD/AltRight are the Axis of Hate 🙂
Alex,
“That’s a culture, not a race. Culture is chosen and evolves over time. And don’t say that race creates culture, that’s total unfalsifiable bullshit.”
Culture is not chosen for the vast majority of people who have ever lived, and are alive today. You are basing your Worldview on a tiny minority of Hyper-Individualists, and are hopelessly alienated from your own species.
If you actually want to fight collectivism and unchosen culture, you should devote your life to destroying the Human Race.
Oh wait, I forgot.
That’s just what people like you are trying to do with your Murderous and Inherently Destabilizing Foreign Policy ideas!
Your boss Frum was cheering so hard his shallow Jewish lungs gave out, when George W. Bush tried to lower the threshold for the use of Nuclear Weapons with his Dr. Strangelove-like “Bunker Buster” proposal.
Do you follow his lead and support the use of any kind of Nuclear Weapon against a Country that didn’t launch a Nuclear attack against America first?
Also, I hate to break this to you, but Karl Marx wasn’t White, and was instead of the Jewish Race.
And a more typical Jew could never be found, save perhaps for his heir Trotsky, who murdered FAR more Whites than Hitler ever killed Jews.
I should say, a more typical Jew of Influence could not be found than Marx, except perhaps for Trotsky.
David Frum is from a long line of mass murderers.
Why is it always the worst Jews who have the most power?
Libertarians condemn collectivism, but nothing in libertarian theory prevents voluntary racism, restrictive covenants, discrimination by private businesses and the like. All these things are illegal or undermined by Title VII, Title IX, Section 8 Housing social engineering, and the like. But libertarians spend tons of energy on the evils of the drug war and the evils of restricting mass immigration–which hurt Tyrone and Juan–but are curiously silent about these major impositions on liberty of contract that are of fairly recent vintage and are aimed at evil racist whites. You rarely see them bring up individual and private sector racism as “none of anybody’s damn business” and an “acceptable lifestyle choice” etc.
Libertarians today ignore the vast literature of 18th and 19th Century classical liberals like Sir Henry Maine, Locke, James Fitzjames Stephens, Albert Jay Nock, John Calhoun and the like that noted the extreme fragility of free institutions and the difficulty of sustaining them over time. This was the major concern of the pro-liberty founders, not ideological purity for its own sake. This is why in the Declaration, among other things, they noted the evils of British alignment with savage Indians and Hessian mercenaries (no mere entrepreneurs, they).
At the end of the day we have a government to provide for certain basic needs, and if they’re not being met because of ideological purity–as in the crime explosion following forced integration and the shackling of police in the 60s–such a proposed culture and institution will not sustain itself and rightly so. Governments exist first and foremost to provide security and if they fail to do so they will be supplanted by either disorder or tyrrany.
Finally, libertarians have a major theoretical problem that is revealed by their hostility to laws against self-harming behavior or diffuse social harms from things like prostitution or drugs or usury. The premise behind such morals legislation is that we can have reasonably certain moral knowledge and that such legislation, while it deprives individuals of a certain amount of freedom, does not do them harm, because the conduct in question is objectively harmful to them. Now the whole basis of such a “natural law” view is that we have a nature, the essentials of which can be understood (and have long been understood) and that we can know with some confidence what is harmful to individuals, even when their free will might compel them to harm themselves. The same understanding of nature which allows us to understand these things also allows us to understand the nature of rights. Both are founded on moral philosophy and a view of human nature and what is in its interests.
The big question then is if we cannot achieve any certain moral knowledge in the areas of traditional morals legislation, on what basis can we obtain any certain knowledge in the areas of libertarian concern, namely the traditional protection of life, liberty, and property and the restriction of government to protecting individuals from one another’s use of force and fraud? This question should be considered seperate from whether or not we choose as a prudential matter to enact and enforce such legislation. But libertarians claim certainty in the realm of natural rights while denying we have a nature that gives us certainty or at least some insight that it is wrong to be a homosexual, a usurer, a drug addict, etc. They want to deny 9/10ths of morality and claim an unusual and incongruent certainty in the area of rights to exclusion of what most men think of as good government, i.e., harmony, peace, order, commerce, etc.
P.C. libertarianism
and the Jewish taboo
By HENRY GALLAGHER FIELDS
“American libertarians were once freedom-loving, truth-loving iconoclasts who took pleasure in spurning the shibboleths of Establishment pundits and intellectuals. No dogma was deemed too sacred to be safe from their skepticism, and every alleged truth was subject to examination by free minds reveling in free inquiry. They were totally outside the mainstream, and they relished that position: one thinks of giants such as Frank Chodorov, Albert J. Nock, Murray N. Rothbard, and Roy A. Childs, Jr., standing lonely but unafraid.
But libertarians today, with some honorable exceptions, are a changed breed. They shy away from the ever-multiplying taboo issues, if they do not actually celebrate the reigning intellectual orthodoxy. Libertarian principles are noticeable chiefly by their absence.”
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/fields_pclib.htm
Knepper:
I want to be perfectly clear that I am entirely consistent in my philosophy: I condemn all forms of collectivism, including all claims based on ‘ancestry.’
Hi Alex. I commend you on at least meeting the minimum criterion of courage by addressing your critics on their home turf. Tim Wise sure can’t claim that.
Alex, if you really are entirely consistent in condemning all forms of collectivism, particularly those forms based on ancestry, then you have a body of work behind you which, insofar as it meets the preceding criteria, is dominated by anti-Israel content.
If not, you fail to meet your own criteria, and you’re full of shit.
Which is it?
What libertarians are saying, Roach, is that we have a right to do wrong.
That’s what adults believe. We don’t want our mommy, the government, to tell us what we can and cannot do with our own bodies and our own property.
I condemn all forms of collectivism, including all claims based on ‘ancestry.’ Pride in one’s heritage — which is a mere accident of birth — is a false shortcut to individual pride.
I do support the state of Israel, which is one of the greatest societies on Earth.
Ergo, Knepper is a bald-faced liar (or hypocritical moron, your pick).
Knepper’s so dumb he hasn’t bothered to look “pride” up in the dictionary. If he had, he’d know about team pride, civic pride, national pride, etc. What a twat.
I condemn all forms of collectivism, including all claims based on ‘ancestry.’
I do support the state of Israel …
It was over right there.
…Either way, life is not a gunfight: it is a battle of competing value-systems. Yours is one of brute force and primitive tribalism; mine is one of individual achievement — rather than a quest for the unearned. – Alex
Well…
Odd that ‘conservatives’ and ‘libertarians’ support Israel, which is more socialist than Sweden according to the Heritage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking.aspx
Israel is not even the ‘freest country in the Middle East’, ranking behind Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Oman.
One upsmanship. E. N. Job Bling wrote on Competitive Altruism-
http://www.amren.com/ar/2003/10/#cover
A question to you and your readers: do you fight cancer through chemotherapy, or by spreading the cancer elsewhere? This so-called hard-nosed pragmatist says that we fight collectivism — by being collectivists! — Can someone make heads or tails of this for me?
If I ever descend so far I’m fighting a war on a concept (terror, collectivism) for its own sake, take me out behind the shed and shoot me please.
I’m curious — are you saying that when we push all the spics and niggers out, we can go back to being individualists who care about values more than race?
I’m saying that I like the Jewish model; one standard for the outgroup, another for the ingroup. In this case, collectivism/individualism.
Kievsky:
You can really tell the difference between the paychecked up “professional party line writers,” versus the passionate volunteers in the trenches who are writing and fighting for kith and kin.
Yep. Useful idiots vs. activists.
I’ve seen people like Knepper end up “going native.”
Yep. He has two “weaknesses” in that regard. First, apparently he’s racially qualified. Second, he’s the type of guy to go into a den of heretics and start shooting the breeze with them.
Danger Will Robinson! Danger Will Robinson!
SSSS:
It was liberating for me personally when I simply stopped caring about political ideologies and instead focused on my *political interests*
Truly. That’s what I was getting at with the war on concepts thing. This is why I say I hate men of principle. Principles are great, and I respect principled men. But men of principle? Get a rope!
It’s the break-in that’s the evil here, not the possession of a weapon. You don’t respond to a break-in by breaking into someone else’s house. You use self-defense against aggression.
Ideology over reality, again. Ask anyone familiar with conflict, and he’ll tell you the guy only willing to fight defensively loses. Fighting according to an ideology is a GREAT way to lose.
At the heart of things, you, like all statists,
Who’s “you”? I sure as hell don’t qualify as a statist. I’m very much a “libertarian” on that score. I put survival, individual and group, ahead of the question, but that aside I assure you I’m no statist.
want to micromanage a society from above,
Nope. I’m currently being micromanaged from above by nutso-kutso diversitards. I’ve gotten the message, and am now even more anti-statist than my parents raised me to be.
with someone who so happens to agree with you ordering individuals around — telling them what they can and cannot do, where they can and cannot live, and what role they must play.
Nope, again. Now, if you’re asking me if I think people have the right to organize, collectively decide who they are, etc., then the answer is yes. Yes, individuals have the right to come together and decide who they are, as a group (in other words, they also have the right to exclude whomever the wish). I would think anyone who values liberty would agree without hesitation.
I am in favor of spontaneous order and voluntary interaction.
You mean, like whites coming together and deciding what kind of community they’ll create?
Sounds like liberty to me.
Lockeford:
Yeah, he may be shooting the breeze but he isn’t exactly engaging, is he.
Kievsky:
We aren’t statists — we want our freedom of association back. It’s the statists who push affirmative action, anti-discrimination policies, school busing, et cetera.
Bingo. Libertarians tell ethnopatriots to take their freedom of association and shove it. We’re supposed to feel “liberated” by this great gesture of freedom-loving, I suppose.
Ben Tillman:
I’m curious — are you saying that when we push all the spics and niggers out, we can go back to being individualists who care about values more than race?
No value can ever supersede the value of life.
Bingo! Priorities, priorities! “Principles” must serve the natural priorities of living beings or they’re not even toilet paper.
Organic communities of related humans are, of course, a prime example of spontaneous order.
Bingo again!
Knepper:
“We aren’t statists — we want our freedom of association back. It’s the statists who push affirmative action, anti-discrimination policies, school busing, et cetera.”
I oppose all of these things on property grounds.
And a libertarian craps in the hat marked “freedom of association” once again!
“LOL!! I’ll bet you are. Multiracialism makes these things impossible.”
Then let’s try it out. Why not advocate a dismantling of the state to its bare bones and see how things work out?
I’m all for that! Now, what have you got for me?
“Classical liberalism failed.”
The reason you’re talking to me right now — the Internet — is a result of classical liberalism.
The guy with a gun to his head gets to chat on the phone; viva la classical liberalism!
That’s a culture, not a race. Culture is chosen and evolves over time. And don’t say that race creates culture, that’s total unfalsifiable bullshit.
What a limp-wristed response! Beethoven chose his culture? Nonsense! He was born to it.
If Jews have to bear blame for such atrocities, then white people have to take the blame for Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, etc. Idiots. Collectivism is a two-way street.
Hi, I’m Svi, welcome to the 21st century. Whites already are bearing the blame for these things, hello! Might as well pull Jews onto the fire too.
“And don’t say that race creates culture, that’s total unfalsifiable bullshit.”
There’s lots of “unfalsifiable bullshit” going around. Much of human endeavor is based on it. I bet we can find tons of “unfalsifiable bullshit” underpinning your beliefs.
Reginald:
Why is it always the worst Jews who have the most power?
Reverse the arrow of causation and you’re in the neighborhood of an answer.
I’d really like to know why “libertarian” means “guy who craps in the hat marked ‘freedom of association’ every chance he gets.”
Can you explain that Alex?
Alex, would you care to address my points instead of mocking them. Guess what adults also know that it matters what others do, what others do with and to their kids, and it matters a lot who your neighbors are. I mean you don’t believe in the Palestinian Right of Return on a libertarian basis, do you? If you do, at least you have that consistency that you’re so proud of.
Knepper (from FrumForum):
[Charles Murray’s] main idea — shared by me and most sensible people — is that while group averages can explain certain discrepancies, trying to form cultural or governmental policy around it is absurd, because no group statistic can ever predict the outcome of an individual.
This is the kind of brilliant discussion that goes on in places where posts like “advocates of racism or anti-Semitism should be banned banned banned!” are common.
On a strictly IQ-fetishist level, how hard is it to figure out that if group A has a mean IQ of 100 and group B has a mean IQ of 80, ceteris paribus, a country exclusively composed of members of group A will have a better time of it? I.e., that predicting individual outcomes has fuck-all to do with predicting group outcomes?
For that matter, how hard is it to figure out that Murray can hide behind the data for his facts, but has to toe a certain line in his opinions if he wants to get published?
There is no such thing as a “National IQ.” Only individuals have IQs.
Thank you, Obi-wan. Truly profound.
You are right about one thing: there is indeed a double-standard out there against whites. If Hispanic people want to have racial pride, they’re called liberated and self-empowered. If white people want to have racial pride, they’re called backwards bigots. Allow me to correct the record: both groups are comprised of backwards bigots.
Again Alex, your middling attempts at consistency only expose you to further critique. Blacks, Jews, mestizos, etc., IN GENERAL are far more bigoted and backward than whites by your definition, but I doubt you can admit that. If you’re fighting bigoted backwardness, ALL YOUR WORK is in the black, Jewish, mestizo, etc., communities. By pretending black, Jewish, mestizo, etc. bigoted backwardness are equivalent, you are COVERING for bigoted backwardness.
There is no such thing as a “National IQ.” Only individuals have IQs. — Alex
Then Alex turns and says…
I can’t help but admire the Jews, though, insular as many of them are (and most of them are not, really). — Jewish culture has produced so many intellectuals, so many scientists, so many great thinkers — that it’s impossible not to conclude that the root of anti-Semitism — the singling out of Jews for opprobrium — is envy. — Alex
Okay, almost done with the serial posting, but I had to give this guy a nod:
sinz54:
M. Pearle:
“….nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live under the same government.” So he’s saying blacks should not live UNDER whites, but should not live WITH them as equals either, but in their OWN country.
No you’re reading it backwards.
When someone says “Nothing is less certain than X,” they mean that X is extremely uncertain.
In this case, the extremely uncertain proposition is that the two races cannot live under the same government.
This guy is either sadly mistaken in his belief that he’s qualified to speak with adults, or the supreme Jew of chutzpah.
Good point Vercingetorix. The more you poke these guys with a stick the more they fall apart. It’s amusing how Crypto thinks it’s going to be Knepper testing us, when it’s clearly the opposite.
Knepper is learning why the David Frums never bring their narrow asses down to our neighborhood.
That should be:
By pretending black, Jewish, mestizo, etc. bigoted backwardness on one hand, and white bigoted backwardness on the other are equivalent, you are COVERING for bigoted backwardness.
The more you poke these guys with a stick the more they fall apart.
Svig,
I would say… “the more you poke these guys with their schtick the more they fall apart”.
Slight modification on your cogent sentiment 😉
“By pretending black, Jewish, mestizo, etc. bigoted backwardness on one hand, and white bigoted backwardness on the other are equivalent, you are COVERING for bigoted backwardness.”
It’s all the same. I have condemned the NAACP, La Raza, and other organizations repeatedly. There’s a cowardice in the mainstream in speaking out against them — while white groups make good whipping-boys — but I see them as all equally stupid. In other words: YOU ARE Benjamin Todd Jealous. YOU ARE Janet Murguia. It’s the same bullshit in a different wrapper. If you want to save our civilization — I mean: real civilization — fight for it: don’t say “We have to save the city by burning it down!”
By pretending black, Jewish, mestizo, etc. bigoted backwardness on one hand, and white bigoted backwardness on the other are equivalent, you are COVERING for bigoted backwardness.
It’s all the same. I have condemned the NAACP, La Raza, and other organizations repeatedly. There’s a cowardice in the mainstream in speaking out against them — while white groups make good whipping-boys — but I see them as all equally stupid. In other words: YOU ARE Benjamin Todd Jealous. YOU ARE Janet Murguia. It’s the same bullshit in a different wrapper.
It’s not all the same, Alex. That’s like saying the problem of drug cartels are all the same, whether you’re in Mexico, Colombia, or Finland. It’s a bullshit cop-out. CLEARLY, if your problem is drug cartels, you have more to talk about vis-a-vis Mexico and Colombia than you do vis-a-vis Finland.
What is this, the fourth grade?
If you want to save our civilization — I mean: real civilization — fight for it: don’t say “We have to save the city by burning it down!”
Let’s say I can wave a wand and all non-whites in the west would be removed to utopias elsewhere. PLEASE explain to me how using it would be the death of “real” civilization.
In what way is what we advocate tantamount to burning down civilization? Just asserting it doesn’t make it so.
Anyone who “crusades” against drug cartels only in Finland is a joke. Similarly, anyone who “crusades” against “collectivism” as much in places where there is collectivism as he does in places where there is not is also a joke; he just doesn’t take his job seriously.
Alex, your construction (collectivism:disease) is not convincing to people who see “viral” warfare used against them on a massive scale and know a more appropriate construction (collectivism:tool). What’s really sad is, you’re an immuno-suppressant and you don’t even know it.
“If Jews have to bear blame for such atrocities, then white people have to take the blame for Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, etc. Idiots. Collectivism is a two-way street.”
Alex, you’re not very attentive, are you? The whole point, explained above, is that collectivism is NOT a two-way street. Whites, and only whites, are expected to lose their countries and be submerged under the Third World hordes. Whites and only whites are condemned collectively, never blacks or mestizos or Asians (Arabs being a possible exception). This is how things work in the real world. Whites face genocide, yet are condemned for opposing it. Non-whites face no such thing. There is no two-way street.
Again, you’re a “theory monster.” You are not to be confused with facts if they get in the way of your theory.
In post after post above, your worldview has been smashed and held up as ridiculous – as provably and demonstrably untrue. The murders and rapes pile up, the dispossession accelerates, the destruction continues unabated. You address none of this, but instead throw sophomoric nonsense at your opponents.
Instead of rebutting any of the substantive arguments made against your position, you offer mere platitudes from the Ayn Rand Reader for Undergrads. This exchange is just proof 10,478 of why the white nationalist position must be actively suppressed. You guys simply can’t win in an open and honest debate.
“That’s a culture, not a race. Culture is chosen and evolves over time. And don’t say that race creates culture, that’s total unfalsifiable bullshit.”
Gotta love it. Alex Knepper – comes with batteries, see how many Randroid comments it can spew!
Look, Alex. The FACT is that whites created most of the things that you have come to take for granted. That’s not opinion, that’s fact.
Your conclusion: it is evil for whites to seek to preserve themselves.
This is ridiculous on its face. Trying to divorce race from culture, or any other leftist schtick, only makes the fraud worse.
Again, the FACT is that Tribe A is producing all sorts of wonderful things that Tribes B,C,D and E aren’t producing. It is quite simply insane to therefore conclude that Tribe A being eliminated is perfectly fine. It’s nuts.
But if you are so convinced of this, why don’t you move to a non-white country? You are the universalist, and everyone is just an individual. Well, Brazil is just a collection of individuals, right? Why don’t you go there? Or any of the myriad non-white countries on the planet?
There are far more non-white countries than white countries.
I’ll tell you why so few libertarians do something like that: you don’t believe your own bullshit. You shout to the heavens that race doesn’t matter, yet you stick to white countries like the parasites that you are. Then you have the utter gall to deny those people’s right to preserve themselves. Absolutely amazing chutzpah. But then, that’s the way of your race denying cult. Shameless parasitism. You won’t move to Brazil, but you demand the right to inflict Brazil on everyone else. Yeah, that’s liberty.
don’t say “We have to save the city by burning it down!”
Burning what down? We’re trying to exclude those most likely to be arsonists from the city.
I still want to know if Alex supports the Palestinian Right of Return on the basis of his pro-immigration views. I mean, after all, we have to fight the Israeli racism and Israeli welfare state, not fight mass immigration by hostile elements. It’s analogous to his view we must fight American ethnocentrism and the American welfare state and not directly fight the massive numbers of Third Worlders that threaten to bankrupt such a fragile system that is bearable so long as the demographics stay the same as they were in 1970.
“If Jews have to bear blame for such atrocities, then white people have to take the blame for Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, etc”
Surprised no one caught this yet…
Stalin was a Mongol from Georgia.
Lenin and Marx were both Jews!
Attempting to affix blame to Whites, and then naming Mongols and Jews as examples isn’t a very fair fight.
Also by the way, what precisely did Il Duce do that is so bad? He didn’t Genocide anyone. Many Italians will still defend Mussolini because ‘hey didn’t kill anywhere near the numbers of people Hitler and Stalin did’.
” If you want to save our civilization — I mean: real civilization — fight for it: don’t say “We have to save the city by burning it down!””
Negative. The status quo has to go:
“it is not a question of contesting and polemicizing but of blowing everything up” – Baron Julius Evola
” I still want to know if Alex supports the Palestinian Right of Return on the basis of his pro-immigration views.”
Good point. I often refer to Palestinians as just ‘Undocumented Migrants’ in need of an ‘Amnesty’! What is good for the goose is good for that gander!