Tennessee
As we saw in the previous video, Somali refugees who are legal permanent residents can take advantage of family reunification provisions of US immigration law to legally import their relatives. In such a way, chain migration has produced a “Somali community” in Nashville over 5,000 strong:
Somali Bantu Get It On In Columbus, Ohio:
These Somali Bantus have 9 children each!
These were the lowest Black slaves of the Somalian Muslim clans!
More evidence, as if any is needed, that Libertarians are loons letting everyone do whatever they want.
These Somalian Muslims want 9 children and they can’t read!
It is the plague.
Total nonsense, Jack. Libertarianism, like any other ideological system, works until it is brought into conflict with forces that uphold its basis. When capitalists sell out their manufacturing facilities and move them off shore, the system begins to fail. Communism even works. It’s when it attacks its own foundation that it breaks down. That foundation is the organic community of people and the resulting natural economy.
It’s a culture problem, not a government problem. I absolutely despise authoritarians.
Opposing…
The plague … The Black Death….
Of course Libertarian loons will come up with some free market explanation that allowing bubonic plagued Black Bantu Somalians to immigrate in to America really isn’t a big deal, it actually is a good thing provided some hard money monetary reforms are made…
Loons… Libertarian loons.
“More evidence, as if any is needed, that Libertarians are loons letting everyone do whatever they want.”
Whether or not “Libertarians are loons”, I don’t think current immigration policy is being made by Libertarians, or that Libertarians are actually running any of these resettlement programs. If Libertarians were elected and took control, could it be any worse than this? Eliminating welfare and government support for all these non-profit refugee-resettlement enterprises could hardly make things any worse than they are. Furthermore, a “libertarian” commander in chief who will support rather than deny the right of the people to nullify unjust laws or even SECEDE from unjust government would powerfully BENEFIT the cause of southern ethnonationalism. Do you really prefer Neo-“conservatism” that serves the cause of global Banking and Zionism with confiscatory taxation and monetary policy, untrammeled non-white immigration and endless wars?
He must. We must have an all-powerful dear leader and goon-riddled bureaucracy to save us from the 3rd world hordes. Clearly, that’s the formula that works. Forget what the founders created, and the millions of Americans that died for actual freedom, as opposed to the canard perpetrated by our corporate plutocracy.
America: Land of the Fee and Home of the Slave
A good commander would sink all their boats and blast their aircraft out of the sky. The last time we witnessed a guy like that was probably Chinese Gordon.
Black Mob attack NRA rally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlvJznNXdto&feature=youtube_gdata_player
President of the NRA is stabbed to death.
Wake up America!
“We must have an all-powerful dear leader and goon-riddled bureaucracy to save us from the 3rd world hordes. Clearly, that’s the formula that works. Forget what the founders created, and the millions of Americans that died for actual freedom, as opposed to the canard perpetrated by our corporate plutocracy.”
Surely you jest, TJ. The plutocracy does not save us but DESTROYS us with dear leaders and goon bureaucracy. I like your motto “land of the fee, home of the slave”.
Q: Hey TJ, what the difference between the worst Liberals and Libertarians?
A: on the live or die issue of mass Black, African Muslims immigration to our country , there is no difference. Both support the replacement ofWhite Southerners from the South.
Why tolerate, enable this immigration treason? Does it really make a difference whether the traitor is a Liberal traitor or a Libertarian loon traitor?
The Swiss and Japanese don’t suffer fools or traitors, why should we ?
Jack, what’s the difference between liberals and Neo-“conservatives” that also support unrestricted immigration and the welfare safety net that attracts and feeds them. At least the “loons”, unlike the liberals and Neocons, want to eliminate the safety net. Some of the best “loons” also recognise and support our right to nullify and secede — which is most important of all!
That’s only partially true. You’re simplifying the libertarian viewpoint. Some are nationalists like myself. That’s like suggesting that fascism is good because Hitler’s regime promoted German stock. We have fascism now, and it is a multicultural, polyglot version dominated by corporations and their lobbies.
‘Does it really make a difference whether the traitor is a Liberal traitor…?”
Little difference, because the true traitors are the traitors of Biblical, Christian orthodoxy. The worst “loon”-acy is to ignore that foundation.
TJ, well said. Liberty or death.
Thanks I think our philosophies have a great deal of overlap.
While libertarians control nothing and win next to nothing electorally, as far as I’m concerned, they might as well be running things when it comes to our immigration policy, because open borders is what most libertarians want. Voting for most libertarians would just be putting new faces with a new ideology at the helm of the same rotten destructive policy.
Mosin Nagant wrote:
At least the “loons”, unlike the liberals and Neocons, want to eliminate the safety net.
I respond:
If someone gave me a cow that lived a hundred years and whose udders gave out pasteurized milk, I’d never have to buy gallons of milk again. The notion that we’re going to repudiate our safety net even to spite the non-white parasites among us and deter non-white immigration is the same kind of fantasyland nonsense.
The simple fact of the matter is that every modern white society (assume they’re all ethnonationalist) will have a welfare state of some sort or another, because it’s a function of the tribalism of white ethnic groups. The only debate is the size of the welfare state, whether the welfare state tends toward earned or unearned benefits, and whether the particulars of the benefits and taxation to fund them hurt economic growth and productivity. I think even an independent Dixie, after it has found a new taker for its obsolete farm equipment, will have a welfare state. But there being no welfare state at all is totally off the table in terms of practical politics.
We have to quit thinking in terms of fantasyland nonsense and start thinking about strategies that actually work and actually have a chance of winning.
TJ
You seem to be of the school that, for the lack of a better term, (and there needs to be a better term, if you ask me), libertarian racialist.
That said, let me do some enhanced interrogation techniques on you.
1. What is your real priority? Libertarianism or racialism? Let me ask it another way: Are you a racialist first and think that libertarianism (the parts of it that aren’t racially treacherous) benefits white people qua white people? Or are you a libertarian first and have in your own mind found a way to square racialism with libertarianism?
2. Since you’re a libertarian racialist, I presume you know other libertarian racialists. How would you answer question #1 in relation to other libertarian racialists?
I’ll have more to say once you answer.
A libertarian racialist is an oxymoron.
When Ron Paul was asked about “White Supremacists” infiltrating his organization, he said, anyone identifying with their race is a “bad person”. And we all saw what they did to the Southern Avenger when his past came out.
So the Libertarians join the Democrats and Republicans in condemning “racism”, because they do not tolerate White racial collectivism. Expecting them of all people, to give Whites a home of our own, is nothing but pipe dreams.
@countenance: Where are you posting from? I was taken aback by your reference to “obsolete farm equipment”. Why would you think that Southern farms don’t have the same farm implements as farms elsewhere? Was this a snide swipe at us from “up North”?
“That foundation is the organic community of people and the resulting natural economy….”
That seems very well put. Authoritarians believe “liberalism” (classic) or libertarianism MUST result in chaos. Like with endless immigration. The Libertarians feel immigration would STOP in their country (as they are banking on NATURAL and biologically proven ideas that, left to their own devices, people would live among the people they chose.)
in other words—- authoritarians believe, deep down, that people want to “mix.”
Maybe that is true FOR THEM. Maybe the people who argue that position WANT secretly to live with somalians and so on. That is why they think a Dictator or high preist is necessary (to STOP them from themselves, lol).
Libertarians trust in the scientifically proven reality that people gravitate, just like dogs, to what smells like themselves.
Already, it is A TOTALLY NON-LIBERTARIAN environment, since it is Authoritative LAWS that are actually forcing this or that population together.
Already the u.s. is in “Authoritarianism”—- and people here disagree with the Dictator’s orders (that they have to be in non-white communities by law)
If you like Authoritariansim, you should be loving all these laws.
ThinJim says:
A libertarian racialist is an oxymoron.
Complete Opposite is true. Libertarians know people are like dogs. They (this is scientifically proven) gravitate toward their own. They form clans, extended family networks, laws based in that natural family organization, etc. (Even Karl Marx admits this in the beginning of his book “The German Ideology”)
Libertarians KNOW THIS.
This is WHY YOU HAVE ALL YOUR Authoritarian Laws right now.
By Authoritarian LAW, you must have race-based communities of certain “quota makeups.”
Authoritarian Law is necessary in order to make people do this (obviously).
Without the Authoritarian Laws to enforce racial quotas— people would not do it (obviously, which is why Authoritarian Law is necessary)
If people naturally wanted to be together, the LAWS would never be necessary
Oh, and thinJim, Ron Paul is a politician. He’s always speaking for a camera. People do what they gotta do.
—- It does seem the “libertarian life,” complete with rights to read, think, speak, etc, was really only for the explorative Nordics and northwestern euros. The others really do seem to crave some constant boot in the face and having men in dresses dictate their thoughts and feelings. On some level, they do not want to really live. That’s a fact.
And now they have pushed this anti-life on the northwest euros.
And Hunter—
thank you for these vids. So many do not know about these “transformations.” It was hidden from so many americans, and they have thought their own towns were the only ones
DixieGirl says:
October 7, 2013 at 2:03 pm
Oh, and thinJim, Ron Paul is a politician. He’s always speaking for a camera. People do what they gotta do.
JR replies:
Another term for this is…
Prostitute – these “people do what they gotta do”.
I’m not enabling tired, old prostitutes as our leaders in this brutal age.
Look to Putin and heavy weight boxing – these are tough White men who know how to fight and they don’t cry, back down just because someone said “Racist”!
ThinJim
I think you’re right most of the time. Though there is a school of thought, patronized by Hans Hermann Hoppe and others, that combine the two. What I think of it is dependent on how those who advocate it would answer the same questions I put to TJ above.
Steve
“Obsolete farm equipment” = Blacks.
DixieGirl
I know what you’re trying to say, but what you want is not libertarianism. The thing that bothers me most about libertarians is the false choice they give us that it’s entirely 100% their way or despotism. We here in the real world should and do have more options. That’s actually a hallmark of relatively fringe ideologies of all sorts, that our only two choices are them and 100% of what they want bringing us paradise and utopia or not purely them delivering less than 100% of what they want resulting in armageddon and hell. They really are cults.
Jack Ryan
The good news is about prostitutes is that they’ll do what the most powerful bidder wants. Their prostitutes can become our prostitutes at the drop of a hat under the right circumstances.
Speaking of these things, one of the best articles I’ve seen on Breitbart in some time:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/The-Two-Partisan-Rebellions-of-Today-and-the-Three-Parties-part-three
I don’t agree with everything here, I still don’t trust Tony Abbott, but the fundamentals are spot on.
Jack is always EVEN MORE appalled at Paul than the Amerian Jewish Committee: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ajc-appalled-by-ron-paul-keynote-address-to-anti-semitic-fatima-center-222880521.html
How the Fatima Center, that AJC considers “a leading Anti-Semitic organisation”, assesses Ron Paul:
http://www.fatimathepathtopeace.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=5&Itemid=9
The same Ron Paul is on record standing in front of the Confederate flag repeating his support of the right to nullify and the right to secede, and saying that the South had to secede and Lincoln’s war was wrong, etc. Of course he’s not a true white racialist, but neither were the big government globalist Neocon alternatives who propose WORSE policies.
Jack, I may be a “troll” to you for not echoing what I consider your misjudgements, but I won’t call you a troll for not agreeing with some of my views.
About that Breitbart article QD links to above.
It seems to me that, when thinking about Erna Solberg, the new prime minister of Norway, that we’re going to win the war, so to speak, by electing a whole lot of pretty good people in a whole lot of places rather than one great leader once. Then I ask myself, where is our Erna Solberg?
Who is the American politician now who sounds most like Erna Solberg?
Jeff Sessions.
DixieGirl says:
“Oh, and thinJim, Ron Paul is a politician. He’s always speaking for a camera. People do what they gotta do.”
People have been saying “He’s a politician” about cowardly respectable conservatives forever. The Libertarians aren’t saying it at this late stage, because they either don’t believe what you desperately want them to believe, or they are out and out cowards. If you want cowards and liars as your leaders, I feel sorry for you.
countenance says:
“I don’t agree with everything here, I still don’t trust Tony Abbott, but the fundamentals are spot on.”
Tony Abbott is a respectable conservative, that pushes white genocide. He and his party put an anti-immigration politician in jail for 2 years and did it in the most cowardly and underhanded way.
Google these search terms and never forget – Respectable conservatives are selfish, underhanded and evil:
tony abbott jailed pauline hanson
Tony Abbott’s dirty Hanson trick – and he lied about it, of course
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/22/1061529330032.html
Respectable conservatives are pure evil. Never forget it.
@countenance
That’s a fair assessment. Regarding your questions.
1) You present a false dilemma. One can be a libertarian and a nationalist at the same time. One does not have to be one or the other. Therefore I am not obliged to choose between freedom and my kin. If I were, I might make a choice. However I lean towards “kinism” as I favor ethnostates over loosely defined and dubious “racial” states. I will grant that a racial state is better than the current malaise.
2) There are a lot of liberty leaning nationalists in the U.S., who don’t even know that’s what they are. Thomas Jefferson was one. I am not inventing a new creed or philosophy. This is very much in alignment with, if not almost identical to what the British derived founders of the American nation created in the first place.
Furthermore, the safety net is complete nonsense. It is not necessary and is a modern invention by and for socialist manipulation. This task has fallen in the past to families and charities and that’s where it belongs. One is not entitled to the labor and assets of another for any reason whatsoever. One does not rob Peter to pay Paul.
If you pick leaders that won’t lead, you deserve everything you get.
Libertarians aren’t about freedom. If they were about freedom, Southern Avenger would still be working for them and Ron Paul wouldn’t have unequivocally condemned everyone here.
Libertarians are about themselves and that’s all there is to them. It is a selfish philosophy the core of which is, I don’t care about anyone but me. So Libertarianism is the polar opposite of nationalism.
Ron Paul made it very clear, they are only about whites as long as whites are powerless individuals. He denied whites a group defense. That’s all I needed to know.
TJ
Overall I think “libertarianism” and “nationalism” are polar opposites. You ARE obliged to “choose between freedom and your kin” if “freedom” (not really “freedom,” see ThinJim above) is defined the way modern pure libertarians define it. If that’s what they mean by “freedom,” then you must choose one or the other, you cannot have both, because freedom will destroy kinship and kinship will destroy freedom.
However, the way you define the school of thought that the non-treacherous elements of libertarianism (i.e. not pure libertarianism) and nationalism of one sort or another should be fused is that nationalism comes first and non-treacherous libertarianism exists in the interests of nationalism.
What I fear about many “libertarian nationalists” (again, for the lack of a better term) is that they’re libertarians (the non-treacherous parts thereof) first and are cynically latching onto nationalism because they know that any sort of libertarianism is extinct if white people go extinct. Such people…we’ll use them and exploit them for our own ends, but we should never trust them, because if that’s their mentality, they still let the abstract ideology lead in their own minds. Furthermore, such people will deny the nationalism part like Peter did Christ if they feel even a wee little bit of heat from cultural Marxists.
Then there’s another consideration. What’s the point? Yeah, you can define libertarianism in such a way that makes it less libertarian and therefore compatible with nationalism. But you can do the same with a lot of other -isms as well. If I ever did think in these terms, I don’t anymore and haven’t for a long time. Let me put it to you this way: I don’t need permission from anyone devoted to any abstract ideology that goes by the suffix -ism to be a racialist and I’m not looking for their permission. Racialism is both the means to the end and the end itself, it’s both the work and the reward. Race comes first, everything else is ultimately negotiable.
Are there some (quasi) libertarians out there who are also racialists? Sure. But I don’t need to justify racialism in libertarian concerns. If all forms of libertarianism disappeared from the minds of humanity tomorrow, racialists would be nary an iota worse off. Libertarians (“-“) need racialists, racialists don’t need libertarians. Some here, including Jack Ryan, can make the case that the disappearance of libertarianism would actually help our cause politically, but I’ll leave those arguments for him.
We have absolutely no need to go to libertarians, they should be coming to us, imploring us to win the day for racialism, helping us however they can, then being happy with what crumbs of libertarianism we give them in our future ethnostate.
Then there’s yet another concern. What’s the practical political benefit of a racialist first libertarianism subordinate ideology? Let me ask it another way: How many elections are we going to win saying that we’re racial patriots, we want an ethnostate, we want the borders locked down so no more non-whites sneak in, we want to deport all the illegal non-whites that are here, disenfranchise and deport all the legal and citizen non-whites, dismantle affirmative action, then turn right around and say we’re going to take your Social Security and Medicare away? Just about one election for dog catcher in Wyoming, but nothing more. I can guarantee you that most white people will vote for the worst racial liberal who wants to keep SS and M over a racial patriot who wants to get rid of SS and M.
The more ethnocentric you become, the less libertarian by definition you become. Until you reach a point where you only have a few elements of libertarianism, but at that time, you’re unrecognizable to most libertarians.
I don’t consider the Founding Fathers to be really much libertarian. Their racialist statements and restricting immigration to certain kinds of white people only would disqualify them from libertarianism in the minds of today’s libertarians. If you gave most of today’s libertarians, including Ron Paul, a list of statements the Founding Fathers made about race and immigration, but didn’t tell them who said these things, they’d denounce them with every slur word in the book.
I think TJ has the correct view. By the way, does “TJ” stand for Thomas Jefferson?
Countenance, I’m surprised at your Authoritarian bent. (You MUST be Roman!) Is there no trace of freedom in your vision of nationalism? What would we DO without freedom?
Never mind though, our liberty is God-ordained and inalienable. Even such “nationalist” tyranny will finally fail.
Re: “Jack Ryan can make the case”: Jack is always appalled at Paul, even more than the American Jewish Committee: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ajc-appalled-by-ron-paul-keynote-address-to-anti-semitic-fatima-center-222880521.html
Mosin Nagant
I recall saying something earlier in this thread about the false dichotomy that libertarians give us between themselves and authoritarianism. I don’t much examine public affairs as a straight line battle between libertariansm or authoritarianism, nor that much anymore between left and right. I am neither a libertarian nor an authoritarian, I am a racialist and an ethnonationalist.
“Cop-out, cop-out,” I can hear the peanut gallery in the back screaming.
No, not really. I pick racial and ethnic particularism, and then follow suit from there with the proper combination of libertarianism and authoritarianism that is necessary to bolster ethnonationalism. But I do not give my mind over to libertarian or authoritarian cults uber alles.
As far as our beloved Jack Ryan, let me leave you with advice that was pounded into my head as I was growing up: Never judge a man until you walk a mile in his moccasins. If you actually walked a mile in JR’s shoes, you’d maybe understand why he has so much contempt for the person of Ronald Ernest Paul and isn’t as down on the standard conventional white liberal as most of the rest of us are. I’ll leave it at that.
How the Fatima Center, which AJC calls “a leading Anti-Semitic organisation”, assesses Ron Paul favourably:
http://www.fatimathepathtopeace.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=5&Itemid=9
The same Ron Paul is on record standing in front of the Confederate flag repeating his support of the right to nullify and the right to secede, and saying that the South had the right to secede and that Lincoln’s war was wrong as well as unconstitutional, etc. OF COURSE he’s not a white racialist, but neither were the bigger-government globalist Neocon alternatives who propose much WORSE policies. Any anti-libertarian “Nationalist” tyranny that retains the Fed (or something like it) and the “safety net” and related bureaucracy, supposedly for the benefit of white people, is in fact an ANTI-white nationalism.
Mosin Nagan wrote:
The same Ron Paul is on record standing in front of the Confederate flag repeating his support of the right to nullify and the right to secede, and saying that the South had the right to secede and that Lincoln’s war was wrong as well as unconstitutional, etc.
I respond:
If it happened anytime between 1988 and 1997, it’s not the real Ron Paul. I guess I’ll have to go over again the famous decade of cuckoldry. Unless I won’t, because I’m probably wasting my time.
Then again, I think I know what your real angle is. You’re assuming that since there are a fair number of Jewish individuals and Jewish organizations that have either directly or indirectly trashed Ron Paul, that he somehow secretly has it out for the Jews, and that he was just “playing the game” (an exact phrase I’ve read more often on certain websites than Carter has pills) to win and then once he wins, he’ll somehow sick out after the Jews. More nonsense that’s not worth responding to.
“you’d maybe understand why he has so much contempt for the person”
Or maybe he is just too easily caricatured to illustrate the notion of “the Old Believer”, coming complete with “a squeaky voice” ?
I generally like Jack Ryan’s posts, especially when he focuses on the necessity and duty of practical political involvement. He is consistent while others swing toward giving up and not even voting. I only hope his anti-freedom comments are really rhetorical overstatement.
Finally, race is not the ultimate reality nor our eternal condition. God first.
@countenance
I concede authority only to God. No man is greater than me, nor has power over me. Should he try is the day he and/or his minions taste death. My loyalties as follows:
God & family, extended family, tribe, race, and country, THEN political system. That is the normal hierarchy. Pure ideology is usually destructive in any form, thus ideology must be restrained. I favor restrained libertarian and agrarian society.
Should people hire Mexicans or slaves (or Somalian Muslims per the topic), I think they should be righted by the mob. In a normal culture that’s what would happen. When members of our family were killed or raped healthy times, we didn’t call the police or hold candle light vigils; We shot the perpetrator on the spot, or hunted him down and let him swing from a tree.
If you need government to correct culture, it’s too late. Culture creates government.
And yes, TJ stands for Thomas Jefferson.
“You’re assuming that since there are a fair number of Jewish individuals and Jewish organizations that have either directly or indirectly trashed Ron Paul, that he somehow secretly has it out for the Jews”
Nah. Their frequent criticism does not prove he is really anti-Semitic. He doesn’t have any such tendency. He was educated at the very liberal Gettysburg College, and remains a member of the very liberal United Church of Christ. He’s neither anti-Talmudic nor evangelically-pro-Zionist. He’s just not concerned with religion, sadly. Please re-read what I wrote above: “OF COURSE he is not a racialist, but neither were the Neocon alternatives who propose WORSE policies”!
Re: “If it happened anytime between 1988 and 1997”:
The Confederate flag scenes actually happened more recently than that — but I, too, think I might be wasting my time, if you really have your heart set on an AUTHORITARIAN white utopia.
“God & family, extended family, tribe, race, and country, THEN political system. That is the normal hierarchy. Pure ideology is usually destructive in any form, thus ideology must be restrained. I favor restrained libertarian and agrarian society.”
Excellent statement, including the ideology reference. “Boring” Christian- , ethnic- , and agrarian-based constitutional mixed polity is rejected by the ideologically-minded.
October 7, 2013 at 11:50 pm
Mosin Nagan wrote:
The same Ron Paul is on record standing in front of the Confederate flag repeating his support of the right to nullify and the right to secede, and saying that the South had the right to secede and that Lincoln’s war was wrong as well as unconstitutional, etc.
JR responds:
Sigh.
Yeah Ron Paul and Rand Paul like to …
Agree with the people in the room. Yeah, when he was once with some Southern people RP agreed that Southerners had some Constitution rights to seperate…
And when Ron Paul was with Conservatives in the 1989s discusted with Black gang members, Black crime, MLK worship, he agreed with them. Also agreed that AIPAc had too much control over US foreign policy and..
15 years later when called out by former AIPAc lobbyists Wolf Blitzer, Ron Paul agreed with Wolf that the comments expressed in RP’s news letter were terrible, RACIST, Ron Paul said he never wrote or even read his own terrible Racist newsletter. Ron Paul then ..
Agreed, said White Racism was the worst stain on American history.
Ron Paul said he considered Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. His personal Libertarian heroes.
Ron Paul agreed with Al Sharpton that most of the young Black males in prison were there because of American evil Racist criminal justice system that put Blacks in jail for things like drug trafficking that should be legal.
Yes, Ron Paul likes to agree.
Oh, and Ron Paul agreed with Islamic extremists and Michael Moore Leftist loons that America was to blae for the 9/11/01 Al Qaeda Islamic extremist attack.
Ron Paul agreed that Muslims had the right to build a Mosque on Ground Zero to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attack.
And immigration, Ron Paul and Rand Paul always agree that immigration is good for America – there is too much border control, what’s needed is …
Free markets, free movement of goods, services, people – millions of people want to come to America… Ron Paul agrees – we’re a nation of immigrants.
Yeah, Ron Paul likes to agree with whoever is in the room, and then tries to push some libertarian spin…
Here’s hoping Ron Paul and Rand Paul get to meet Black gangster, bi-sexual rapists and then they can…
Agree
Jack, even you cannot fault his consistency on the Fed, the Bankers, their endless war, and nullification and other state and local rights, etc. Your favoured candidate Romney (yes, mine as well, and I actually worked in his campaign after the primary season) — who was wrong on ALL those points — was also quite broadly AGREE-able, like nearly all other successfully-elected politicians.
We CAN AGREE that he’s not a racialist, nor especially religious, can’t we?
Some racialists find that constant “VERY old” and “squeaky voice” rhetoric very DIS-agreeable. It rankles those who love freedom as much as religious expression rankles those who really hate religion or have little use for it.
“Ron Paul agreed with Islamic extremists and Michael Moore Leftist loons that America was to blae for the 9/11/01”
Not only to blame, but very possibly involved.
Rat race city people really do live in fear of these mostly false flag and psyop mass destruction threats, don’t they? City people keep voting for more and more “Patriot Act” security measures, like cameras on every wall and intersection, while we born-and-bred country folks continue to love our God-ordained, inalienable freedom.
What will you do without freedom?
TJ
You’re sane.
This means in our coming ethnostate, you get to negotiate and be part of the debate on public policy. That’s because I now know you’re advocating what you do in good faith for our tribe.
However, it also means that if you don’t get your way 100% of the time, you’ll accept it and not undermine our tribe and ethnostate in order to get your way on some ideological point or bone of contention.
That means if there’s more welfare than you think there should be, or if tax rates are a little higher than you think they should be, or if certain pharmacological substances are prohibited and their illicit merchants are sent to prison and you don’t think they should be, it means you’re not going to import millions of non-whites then promised them free legal weed so you can win an election and get your way on drug policy.
Right?
Mosin Nagant
If Ron Paul would have ever become President, or if Rand Paul ever does, they would be as left wing on race and immigration matters or worse as/than even the most liberal Democrat.
How do I know this?
Intelligence guided by experience.
If you give someone who is that curious combination of political prostitute and ideological cultist that is Ron Paul, or only slightly less so Rand Paul, the Presidency, in the city where it is surrounded by the people, forces, media and cliques that it is, and the media and TPTB start pressuring President Paul on racial matters, what do you think they’re going to do?
If Ron Paul “caved” under media scrutiny during his Presidential campaigns on race matters, you know how he would govern if he actually was President.
Rand Paul, we already know — He ran from his very minor libertarian-based criticisms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the media pressure got to much, he ran so fast that you might as well have thought whatever he was running from had a case of the Bubonic plague. He went from having some decent promises on immigration during his campaign for Senate in 2010 to earlier this year telling the Razatards and others at least four times that “we’ll find a place” (i.e. amnesty) all their squat monsters. Project that political vector out to him hypothetically being President in 2017, and on racial matters, he might as well be the third term of Obama/Holder.
You mention the issues that Ron Paul never flip flopped on. I think given enough media pressure in the right situation, he would even flip flop on those. He would give up on trying to repeal the Federal Reserve and cut the banksters away from power if the media hounded him about the “anti-Semitism” of doing so.