I adamantly disagree with this naivety; as I believe capitalism without a moderating constraint in social conservatism, as typified by the booming porn industry, will push forward subversive, base products because they tend to sell. Further, as Whiskey pointed out, America isn't defined by tax rates nor will anyone find spending cuts emotionally satiating:
When, for the most part, America is and mostly has been a set of cultural alliances of the four British folkways/cultures in conflict and alliance with each other, but united by tradition, over-arching culture, and so on. America is not tax rates, its Christmas and Fourth of July and Apple Pie and Jimmy Cagney, Bogart, Steve McQueen, and Die Hard. Its an emotion (because people won't die for a line on a chart) that speaks to a greatly extended family. That's the only thing people will care about.One commenter, our resident condescending liberal Dave, also accused me of fascism as he interprets my social conservatism as such. Of course, I don't agree with this conception as I see small government and social conservatism as both necessary components in returning America to its pre-60s roots. Nonetheless, my vision incorporates an overarching societal metamorphosis as opposed to the individualistic one put forth by Dr. Paul. But I do admit that I've treaded closely around the fringes of government intervention in supporting the Swiss minaret ban and the Egyptian dictatorship. I did so in each of these cases because perhaps government sometimes must spur an organic social conservatism - if the situation is desperate enough. In Europe, especially France, the time is near. Obvious HBDer and French "provocateur" Eric Zemmour sees government as the only way to maintain the French nation he once knew. (I also include a passage relevant to HBD.)
He is perhaps France’s best-known professional provocateur, as much adored by the xenophobes of the far-right as he is reviled by immigrants, women and gays. He can be heard daily on French radio, read weekly in the news media and seen all over television; he is routinely accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, fear-mongering and narcissism, or some combination thereof. “I’m reviving the ‘French polemic’ in a world that’s on the one hand Americanized, and on the other, that people want to see sterilized by antiracism, by political correctness,” Mr. Zemmour said over coffee at the back of a dark Paris cafe. “That it is to say, where you’re not allowed to say anything bad about minorities.”Unfortunately though, our own government might be too far gone to help. Nonetheless, I think this speaks to the fact that many prominent conservatives don't see individuals, acting independently according only to their own wants, as sufficient in affecting widespread change. It must come from above because societal movements need large masses of people united by a common cause.
Paradoxically, Mr. Zemmour often exercises his right to free speech to endorse stricter limits on similar freedoms. He advocates a return to authorizing only Christian first names for children born in France, a restriction lifted in 1993; his ancestors in Algeria had adopted French names, he noted. And he hailed the ban on the public wearing of the full facial veil as a way “to oblige people to become authentically French.” “The state needs to do its job, which it’s always done, of imposing constraints,” he said. “For me, France is the ban on the veil.”
33 comments:
I don't really know enough about Ron Paul and his supporters to divine their ultimate motives and beliefs but strong one argument can be made in his favor.
Although, as you state, the removal of big government is not a sufficient condition for the American renewal you seek it is a NECESSARY condition, a significant portion of the fight and it is one which can be argued now without apology. Whilst there have been voices calling him a fascist or racist, as there are with any right wing politician, these have never really gained traction because he keeps his focus narrow.
I agree that Ron Paul isn't completely correct but he is USEFUL and the fight he is engaged in works to the advantage of true conservatism, even if he himself doesn't espouse it.
Leave it to the French to formulate a statist solution! The French even have a Jean-Baptiste Colbert statue at Luxembourg Palace (in addition to other bureaucrats and philosophers), and he was a bureaucratic brown noser to the king! The Catholic French "king" wanted all of France to be Roman Catholic, so Colbert flip-flopped on his position regarding the Protestants. He also believed in the marriage between commerce and state and wanted the state to control business.
He also believed in a rigid class structure and generational oligopoly for corporations, which meant no advancement or incentives to work hard (after all, the worker isn't going anywhere and is locked out of institutions to better their position), but every incentive to riot and for the working class to leverage its numbers against the higher classes for negotiation purposes.
The corporations have the power to magically make something "cool" and desirable in the minds of their market share. Why not market respectable clothing, proper grammar, and values conducive to the individual as desirable instead of violence and trashy behavior?
Keep in mind that even if Ron Paul were elected president he cannot clap his hands, say abracadabra, and make the parasitical bureaucracies go away, and powerful entrenched interests would oppose him every step of the way. As far as the Fed goes the people who run it and control it love their advantage over others and aren't just going to gracefully let it end.
"The people will apparently revert themselves to pre-60's norms, even if not motivated by a race-conscious, pro-American, pro-traditional social landscape."
America also has far more minorities than pre-1960s America. At least we can say that overpopulation isn't the white man's fault.
OneSTDV,
Your desire to revert to the pre-1960s social order makes you a reactionary. This is fairly easy to confuse for fascism, which is also palingetic. Departures begin there, since as near as I can tell you don't wish to organize the United States on corporatist lines nor do you wish to reject liberal civilization.
Reactionaries who think that libertarian government is sufficient to return us to the old order are wrong. While an end to the EEOC and all racial quotas from the government would be a welcome step in that direction, what would limited government do to correct our degenerate culture? I cannot see how low taxes and an unregulated economy will result in Hollywood ceasing to make films which promote race mixing and homosexuality.
If anything, unrestricted capitalism over the long run tends toward the destruction of all social barriers, save those which protect property. Social barriers and customs are an obstacle to turning all humans in cogs in a global production machine, which is the end logic of capitalism. Capitalism is profoundly anti-human in this respect, which is why it must either be disciplined by a strong culture or regulated by the state (usually both).
I think there are two enormous problems facing the US in particular and the Western nations in general:
1. Fiscal collapse
2. Cultural dissolution.
Let's look at the US. President Obama's current budget calls for a deficit of $1.6 trillion, or about 11% of GDP. The current federal debt approximates the annual GDP. Clearly this threatens our economic vitality and saddles future generations with enormous debts. Assume that there are 20,000,000 illegal aliens in the country and that each receives government largess in the amount of $10,000 per year in excess of any economic contribution. Let's kick them all out. Then let's cut out useless federal bureaucracies such as the Departments of Education, Commerce, Transportation, Energy and Housing and Urban Development. Throw in foreign aid. Now let's cut the military budget in half, putting our military expenditures, as percentage of GDP, in line with countries such as the UK, France and China. How are we doing so far? We've cut the deficit almost in half! Now we have to reform entitlements, or they will eat us alive in future years. So we raise the eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security to around 70 or 72. Plus chop Medicaid eligibility. Now let's look at the revenue side. Federal tax revenues in 2009 were about $2.1 trillion. Obama assumes revenue growth of 7%, which is extremely optimistic, recognizing that 2009 tax revenues were less than 2005. But at that rate, we could expect to balance the federal budget in 4-5 years. If we assume a 2% growth it will take 12-15 years. And that's with all the cuts I've outlined and absolutely no new spending. Ron Paul gets this one right.
Cultural dissolution is also a serious problem. Unfettered immigration, PC, multiculturalism, HBD denial - these things will wreck our country. Pat Buchanan gets this one right.
So I view Paul and Buchanan as two sides of the same coin. Paul emphasizes the fiscal aspects but certainly has also opposed open borders. Buchanan points out the dangers of cultural erosion but certainly doesn't ignore the need for fiscal prudence. Which one is right? They both are.
"I adamantly disagree with this naivety; as I believe capitalism without a moderating constraint in social conservatism, as typified by the booming porn industry, will push forward subversive, base products because they tend to sell."
Not so sure. Naked capitalism will crush the hedonistic as such short sighted lifestyles tend to be self limiting in the absence of a social safety net.
Social safety nets are dysgenic, as they preserve and promote low functioning at the expense of the high functioning.
Our nation's roots were the Massachusetts winters where about half of even the most disciplined and conscientious folks died, leaving some of the most fit specimens ever to roam the planet. The smart, clever, strong, and conscientious survived and subsequent generations had the highest fertility and lowest infant mortality, and highest literacy ever seen to that point. Selection in action. Real results.
One,
Once again, you knocked it out of the park with this post -- but don't despair, there is always hope for salvation:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04755a.htm
(I can't help but keep gently proding you to seek Christ in your life...He will do wonders for you and for America)
Anyway, I was struck by this comment of yours in the post: "perhaps government sometimes must spur an organic social conservatism - if the situation is desperate enough." I think traditional conservatives like us need to distinguish between the proper role for government and the proper level of government. We shouldn't apologize for using government for its proper ends. Going back to Whiskey's mention of the book Albion's Seed and my favorite American folkway, the "Purtians", the Massachusetts colonists were certainly socially conservative and had the local government all up in everyone's business -- but they did so because they had a vision of a good society and wanted to maintain that vision. They also had what we would consider today a libertarian or minimal government structure and obviously no federal government. So as conservatives we can support government intervention when it serves nobel ends (e.g. to preserve American culture -- enforce immigration restrictions, get tough on crime laws, ban pornography) but we should be wary of large-scale government programs and obviously give as much freedom to individuals to move around the country and form associations of like-minded groupings so they can govern themselves at the local level as much as possible. Subsidiarity is the word of the day!
"So as conservatives we can support government intervention when it serves nobel ends "
I really wish you Christians would read the Constitution as often as you do the Bible.
You sound just like a Liberal. The only difference is your definition of "Noble" vs. theirs.
A true American should only support the government when it obeys the limits set forth in the constitution.
Any other action, no matter how well intentioned, is unconstitutional, and therefore ILLEGAL.
If your "noble" purpose is truly such, then a majority of citizens would agree with you, and support an amendment to the Constitution.
And in that same vein, looking for a Presidential candidate to fix our faltering government is not only a fools errand, but is also unconstitutional, as "ALL legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..." -- Article 1 Section 1.
That's the real reason why "Obama-Care" and "The Patriot Act" and "The New Deal" and every other law championed by a US President has been so dangerous: these are laws demanded by Presidents, so that they could pursue their "Noble Ends."
But the President is ONLY allowed (under the Constitution) to enforce the laws. He should NEVER be allowed to create them.
That's how kings/dictators are made.
And we're well along that path now.
I'm a regular reader of this blog and a fan of it. But, with all due respect, I think One embarrassed himself in his last post on Paul and absolutely had his butt handed to him in the comments, particularly by 'The Anti-Gnostic' and 'Rusty Mason.' Kudos to the both of them.
I'm surprised One has returned to the subject so quickly and hasn't learned from the comments to the last post.
Paul isn't perfect but he would be a huge improvement over what we have now. For One not to see this and to ridicule Paul for his Fed idee fixe is sad. Perhaps I'm incorrect or being unfair, but I sennsed ridicule. Paul is correct on the Fed and this blog should at least present his views fairly if he is to be called things like 'reprehensible.'
Btw, if that leftist fool 'Dave' calls (or implies) One a 'fascist' again, he ought to be banned. Just my two cents.
OneSTDV thanks for the kind words/quote.
Silly Girl -- Actually the highest death rates according to Albion's Seed was in the Tidewater country, very unhealthy. Massachusetts was far healthier because it was colder (killed Yellow Fever off) and had limited amounts of mosquitos.
My problem with Paul is that he does not diagnose the problem properly. The problem is primarily a plummeting White birthrate and gargantuan amount of Mexican-based illegal immigration (supplemented from Central America) with very high levels of second/third/fourth generation birthrates for those groups.
Who further don't assimilate, become wealthy, remain poor, and remain racially extremely hostile to the White American culture and people.
Yes spending is out of control. It is out of control because of immigrants. Same as Europe. Europe had a big social safety net AND a military, in the 1950's and 1960's, as it was still digging out from WWII. It had that because it could afford it -- its White population used social spending very little, and produced a lot of wealth. Being cohesive, it tended not to abuse welfare too much, strove upwardly for higher wages/earnings, and did not impose high prison/justice system costs. France after WWII could afford: costly wars in Vietnam, Algeria, and with the OAS, at the same time it had high social spending.
Paul worries about Israel and "Jewish influence' instead of making the case that America gets richer by deporting illegal aliens, and also preserves our culture, which includes a great cohesiveness.
The WSJ had Sophie Hawkins quoted as saying she cares only about the land, not the people, and that war is futile because the land doesn't care about who is on there. THAT is the attitude we must fight, pointing out it is first, unnatural, secondly deludely feminine in nature (easy for a pretty woman to accept a conqueror, not so much for an ugly man who will be at best a slave). And finally self-defeating: the reality is brutal subjugation of all we hold dear and endless fighting in brutal ways every day. Since there is nowhere to run to in any event.
"as typified by the booming porn industry"
Free online porn is booming at the expense of the porn industry.
http://nymag.com/news/features/70985/
"After once being the best thing that ever happened to porn, the Internet is now wreaking havoc: destroying some fortunes, making bigger ones, and serving as a stimulus plan, in more ways than one."
"Silly Girl -- Actually the highest death rates according to Albion's Seed was in the Tidewater country, very unhealthy."
Yes, but that was a different group of people who went on to have different results. Not slamming them, just noting the difference.
The elimination of big government is a necessary prerequisite for the kind of social change you guys argue for. Once you eliminate big government, people will be free to pursue the kind of social values that they like. Since different people seek different things, any kind of top-down command system is necessarily counterproductive.
I don't consider stuff like porn or strip clubs and the like to be any big deal. Countries like Japan have had large sex-trade industries and, yet, have managed to become technologically advanced economies. This kind of social issues are trivial.
"My problem with Paul is that he does not diagnose the problem properly..."
@Whiskey: Who out there with any reasonable chance of becoming potus does diagnose the problem properly?
Again, Paul is not perfect. But he seems so much better then any viable alternative.
I think you're bit being unfair to libertarians (I still consider myself to have strong libertarian leanings) by assuming that libertarianism can't embrace pro-Western hereditarian realism.
Geert Wilders is a libertarian on many issues such as gay marriage but he is rock solid on zero-muslim immigration conservatism and got his coalition partners in the Netherlands to cut non-EU (read "non-white") immigration by 50%.
Pat Buchanan, are ultimately useless in defending this country from its slow multicultural disappearance.
Buchanan isn't pro-American, he's a lying propagandist for muslim terrorists who smears his own countries legitimate national defense policies by saying that America's decades long interference in muslim countries was motivated by Jewish control when in fact America had an extremely good reason to interfere in muslim affairs, ie, to keep Communist Russia away from the Middle East's oils supplies.
And he's done nothing to advance a mostly white or all white immigration policy.
His criticisms of immigration are "Krikorian style" in the sense that he uses every argument against immigration EXCEPT that different races have different hardwired psychological traits which means that the ability of different races to assimilate drops as psychological trait overlap increases (traits such as IQ and future time orientation).
psychological trait overlap increases
I meant "decreases"
@TUJ - And you are being more then a bit unfair to Buchanan. Go figure.
I'm sure one could find plenty of better examples, but I recall a quote of Buchanan's that went something like it would be much easier for the US to assimilate X number of Englishmen then X number of Africans.
He has done a hell of a lot more to advance a sane immigration policy for the US then you and your ilk will ever do.
I'm sure one could find plenty of better examples, but I recall a quote of Buchanan's that went something like it would be much easier for the US to assimilate X number of Englishmen then X number of Africans.
He normally doesn't use IQ, future time orientation, and other psychological trait differences to justify immigration restrictionism.
He normally relies on only economic and cultural arguments (which are not bad reasons in and of themselves, but just less persuasive when used without psychological trait differences).
He has done a hell of a lot more to advance a sane immigration policy for the US then you and your ilk will ever do.
1) The border is still wide open and we haven't even begun to have any movement to close off LEGAL immigration. So it looks like buchanan has failed. Maybe if he wrote fewer columns attacking Israel (a country which is a foreign policy issue and has NOTHING to do with our immigration policy anymore than our Taiwan or South Korea foreign policy does) and more time attacking legal immigration he might have made more headway.
Also, most of the conservatives to whom an anti-immigration platform would appeal to are Evangelical Christians who no more support buchanan's anti-Israel policies than muslims wills support nuking mecca.
2) I'm not aware of any evidence that the Jews are running America's current immigration policy except for the "evidence" presented by rogue white nigger crackpot's like kevin "Judaism is a group strategy to exterminate the white race" macdonald and 85 IQ cult followers and those with a profit incentive to slime Jews.
@ TUJ:
Fine, then Geert Wilders isn't a true libertarian. You often hear him speaking of traditional Dutch culture and people, their way of life, how it's opposed by Islam and Muslims as a whole. He speaks of maintaining cultural and ethnic hegemony in his nation.
I've never heard Paul speak on these matters.
And if he did, it WOULD be out of line with pure libertarianism - which holds that upholding the ability to pursue one's own ends should be the primary duty of a nation.
he's a lying propagandist for muslim terrorists who smears his own countries legitimate national defense policies
Buchanan has many good things to say about race and culture, but this does sicken me about him.
He has a little chip on his shoulder about Jews too - no doubt about it.
Fine, then Geert Wilders isn't a true libertarian.
I agree Wilders is not a true libertarian but he's not a true conservative either if he supports gay marriage. If he's not a true libertarian or true conservative then what is he? Personally I don't care too much how he is classified and am simply interested in whether his policies are good and work.
I'm in the same boat as Wilders, as are other HBDers who are ex-libertarians, we're not sure how to classify ourselves because we've both assimilated group psych differences into our thinking but still check off support for a number of individual libertarian policies..
"capitalism without a moderating constraint in social conservatism, as typified by the booming porn industry"
@OneSTDV- have you addressed this specific issue before? I ask, in part, because it seems plausible that the government may be partially responsible for this occurrence, since the federal promotion of "the arts" could have contributed to promoting tolerance of obscenity.
That aside, I still think that you can agree that Ron Paul would, on the whole, be good for conservatism. If nothing else, he would cut funding of programs that are socially subversive.
Of course, there are still a couple of other issues with your assertion.
That should be "effecting change".
...with all due respect, I think One embarrassed himself in his last post on Paul and absolutely had his butt handed to him in the comments, particularly by 'The Anti-Gnostic' and 'Rusty Mason.'
Really? OneSTDV didn't disagree with RP's small-government philosophy in general, or say RP was worse than (or even as bad as) the establishment Republican pols. He harshly criticized one aspect of RP: his arid conception of America in strictly econo-legalistic terms. But I guess if you don't surrender completely and fall down in abject worship of the great God Ron, you're a heretic.
"Although, as you state, the removal of big government is not a sufficient condition for the American renewal you seek it is a NECESSARY condition, a significant portion of the fight and it is one which can be argued now without apology. Whilst there have been voices calling him a fascist or racist, as there are with any right wing politician, these have never really gained traction because he keeps his focus narrow."
Stated another way, big government has been necessary to cause the problems we have with immigration invasion. Imagine the same post 1965 immigration, Reagan amnesty and equally lax border control but no Section 8, HUD, welfare, war on drugs/poverty and complete freedom of association, contract (including land covenants), assembly and speech, where the government's only role was to protect from force, fraud and invasion (no "licensing" of any kind) and everything else privatized.
The differential in productivity and criminality between Euros and NAMs would be held up in stark relief (leading to private solutions) and the most productive Euros would be better set to start and raise their own families
Forced subsidizing by citizens of immigrants' fecundity is more than half the problem.
@ OneSTDV,
This has been a great pair of posts that has touched off a quite interesting discussion. Thanks.
"capitalism...will push forward subversive,hi base products because they tend to sell"
This I think is the key point. If I may rephrase, the market, if left unfettered, will tend to debase society. The invisible hand does this because man himself is base and will run, not walk, toward Gomorra if given the opportunity.
Capitalism in and of itself is merely a method of resource allocation; it allocates those resources according to the proclivities of those who inhabit the system. Capitalism is amoral, tabula rasa, shaped by the character of those who participate.
The sort of right liberalism that RP espouses (disclaimer: I am a big fan of Paul, but this is a blind spot of his) is by definition a variant of liberalism. It assumes that man is in his essence good or at least neutral, instead of incorrigibly evil. This entices right-liberals (and libertarians) to overlook the role that culture plays in maintaining a free society, apparently thinking that by being culturally laissez-faire all will work out in the end, magic-like, if only governmetn would get out of the way.
Right-liberals "default" on the question of culture because they can't conceive of any legitimate role that government would play in protecting/fostering the culture, so they put the question out of their minds entirely.
Unfortunately for right-liberals, leftists have thoroughly dismantled civic society--those institutions that perform social functions that may only be clumsily done through government force--through a deliberate program of transferring those functions to the State. This leaves right-liberals at a disadvantage, for the civil society was the organ by which a right-liberal society governed itself. Chaos results, for the people can no longer govern themselves, leaving the government to do it for them.
I used to be very right-liberal, but as time goes on, I have come to think that until civic society can be re-established (I discuss a few thoughts on how to do that here), being right-liberal is merely acquiescing to being a passenger on the leftist train.
"But I guess if you don't surrender completely and fall down in abject worship of the great God Ron, you're a heretic."
Hardly.
I agree One has been critical of the establisment GOP/conservative movement, etc.
But in that last thread there was no acknowledgment on his part, that I recall, that Ron Paul would be a much better choice for potus then any of the other possible/viable candidates out there. No acknowledgement that even if Paul is wrong/bad on some important issues, he is also absolutely right on some important issues.
I'll take the guy who is right on some things over those who are dead wrong about everything.
And it isn't clear to me how 'bad' Paul really is on immigration. Some comments in the previous thread suggest he isn't bad at all on that issue.
"that perform social functions that may only be clumsily done through government force-"
Er, this should read "...that perform social functions that government would perform clumsily"
Elusive Wapiti: "The sort of right liberalism that RP espouses (disclaimer: I am a big fan of Paul, but this is a blind spot of his) is by definition a variant of liberalism. It assumes that man is in his essence good or at least neutral, instead of incorrigibly evil. This entices right-liberals (and libertarians) to overlook the role that culture plays in maintaining a free society, apparently thinking that by being culturally laissez-faire all will work out in the end, magic-like, if only governmetn would get out of the way. "
A racially homogeneous and consequently high-trust white nation needs little governing. Ron Paul might be naive about the relationship between racial homogeneity and trust (though it's hard to believe of anyone who came of age in the '50s and lived until now) but he is surrounded by the type of men who invariably end up governing us and without doubt well-acquainted with their "incorrigible evil".
I'll take the guy who is right on some things over those who are dead wrong about everything.
I agree, but I'm concerned that Paul's ostensible lack of American patriotism undermines any good he'd bring about.
IMO, we need a strongly patriotic, explicitly pro-American, implicitly white political, social, and cultural ethos for everything else to fall into place. IMO, all the practical initiatives, such as limited immigration, traditional popular culture (i.e. more Taylor Swift, less Kesha/Lady Gaga), the abolishment of feminist courts, can only start, and will more easily come about, from this particular ethos.
But Paul does not champion this, and in fact, he spends most of his time bashing America.
@ EW:
Excellent comment. As you do, it's incredibly important to note the interplay between man's inherent nature, a free-market, and socially conservative institutions.
"I don't consider stuff like porn or strip clubs and the like to be any big deal. Countries like Japan have had large sex-trade industries and, yet, have managed to become technologically advanced economies. This kind of social issues are trivial."
The Japanese method of social control relies on obligations to other people in a social context, so watching tentacle pornography and visiting prostitutes is less of an issue. The Western method depends also on the personal discipline inculcated by Christianity, which values purity of thought as well as action, so pornography is more destructive here than it is there.
So I don't think we can get away with it the way they do.
"Yes, but that was a different group of people who went on to have different results. Not slamming them, just noting the difference."
Yes, Silly girl, you are correct. The difference is that most of the descendants of the Tidewater settlers actually have some pride in their culture today. Can't say the same for many of the descendants of the supposed "most fit specimens to ever roam the planet"...hmm.
OneSTDV, I think your enthusiasm for paleoconservatism has caused you to skip a link in your chain of reasoning, especially as it relates to NAMs and a certain social controversy.
As you've noted, one of the most socially depressive influences in the USA is the increasing trend towards out-of-wedlock births. This is now in the range of 70% among blacks and 50% among Hispanics. In 2006, one out of every ten unmarried Hispanic women in the USA had a baby. ONE OUT OF TEN!
Think about what would happen if these out-of-wedlock births suddenly stopped.
The Hispanic birthrate would be cut in half. The 2007 count would have gone down 50% from 148,000 to 74,000. The black count would have sunk 70%, from 114,000 to just 34,000! The white rate would have changed much less, from 315,000 down to 220,000 (minimum, likely more). The demographic momentum would shift firmly back toward descendants of Europeans, and that's not counting the enormous savings in public health costs from fewer premature, low-birthweight NAM babies.
Yes, it would be a great thing, but what magic wand could you wave to make it happen?
It's the ugly word that social conservatives hate: ABORTION.
If the only social support we gave to pregnant unmarried girls was the option to get married or get an abortion (at public expense), the vast majority of unmarried NAMs would get abortions. A huge part of the NAM birthrate would evaporate, especially among the least intelligent and responsible. If you paid the school dropouts to take endo-uterine quinacrine to sterilize them permanently, they would probably take it. That would eliminate the future pregnancy rate too, taking the issue of abortion off the table.
(Whites would probably get married. There's a lot more social capital among whites to support young families, especially if the NAM drain on social services was slashed.)
This is why paleoconservatism is not the answer. The paleo side is a mindless follower of The Way Things Have Always Been Done (Except When They Haven't, like the Greek and Roman post-natal selection of which children lived and died). Paleos cannot think outside the box, and can't get beyond their own propaganda-conditioned revulsions. The paleos want women to have to carry babies with Down's syndrome and even anencephaly to term! This is both ridiculous and very, very dysgenic; there's nothing guaranteed to cut off additions to a family like what's euphemistically called a "special-needs child".
This is why I think you're wrong on abortion. I see why you think the paleos are the best hope out there and want to curry their favor, but that doesn't mean they too do not have their own self-defeating philosophical errors like SWPLs and PC-MC. Abortion is perhaps their biggest mistake. It's a mistake that today's "libertarians" have copied since I started following the movement in the 1970's; there's no liberty in forced fertility.
The final irony is that the biggest opponent of abortion is the Roman Catholic Church, which is also a huge promoter of socially-regressive immigration and other negative trends. You're in bed with guys in dresses who bugger young boys.
Is someone actually saying Ron Paul is good on immigration? Maybe in some circuitous method of defining 'good', in that he voted no on some amnesty along with everything he votes down; and his reasoning on voting against amnesty having to do with some pork that was attached with it.
Ideologically speaking, Ron Paul, his supporters, and doctrinaire Libertarianism is Stateless, One World, Open Borders in nature.
There's very little difference between the world Libertarians and Communists dream of. They simply have a different conception of mankind and thus a different method of arriving at Utopia.
"One commenter, our resident condescending liberal Dave, also accused me of fascism as he interprets my social conservatism as such."
What I wrote was this:
"It [OneSTDVism] is of course, indistinguishable in many small and large particulars from fascism as practiced by the Italians -- but One doesn't really understand this."
I wouldn't call that an accusation of anything. It's a statement about your political views.
It's become a cliche that the left tosses off accusations of fascism willy-nilly, and that's a shame. because the similarities between your views on the role of government and fascism are significant and obvious to anyone who's paid the slightest attention to history.
See below, where you argue
-that your political opponents should be stripped of the right to vote.
http://tinyurl.com/4porhtm
-that we must maintain a strong military in order to inspire feelings of nationalistic awe in "average" Americans.
http://tinyurl.com/4porhtm
And of course, see above, where you demand that your own personal interpretation of American culture -- which, let's never forget, you can't define in words -- be enforced "from above" so as to have "large masses of people united by a common cause" under a strong central leadership. As opposed to the culture being defined by the paltry "individuals" who live here.
I mean, that's just for starters. I've read all your posts, One. Basically, what you want is for the government to take as its primary function the spiritual elevation of those Americans you see as most culturally pure. Meanwhile, you repeatedly denigrate the most basic and treasured principles of traditional American democracy.
It's not spurious to compare that to fascism, no matter what the sycophants you've surrounded yourself tell you.
Post a Comment