On Free Trade

See this Vox Day post:

The Libertarian Case for Free Trade

And please note that for the most of my short life I would have/did describe myself as a sort of Anarcho-Capitalist with Traditionalist leanings. (Warning: Language)

Fantasy and Reality, which will you choose? The life and preservation of the West and its cultures or universalism/internationism without self determination, which will you choose?

(warning: language)

This is all complete mental masturbation as there is no such thing as free trade except in the fantasy sense.

This simple truth kills the whole argument. Until there is a completely level playing field, there is no free trade.

As most countries view themselves as nation-states with national interests, it will ALWAYS be this way unless there is a One World Governmental body.

It seems that only the West is not allowed to seek its own best interests.

One side is playing the trade war and the West is lying down and spreading its collective legs.

When someone speaks the magic spell of free trade, they should be slapped accordingly. They are mentally masturbating to their own theoretical musings of a utopian/fantasy world and nothing more.

Free trade is internationalism/universalism. All cultures will have to be subsumed for it to exist (the benefit of the free movement of labour)

Free trade is utopian mind bullshit. Free trade is anti-West. As a former AnCap, I can't believe how long it took me to see what an autiste I was in this. Now I look at those who still believe this bullshit and wonder how can the intelligent be so damn stupid. They are either too involved with the theory and not the real world, or this is the other side of the communist/marxist coin as a Hegelian mambo death dance for the West.

Also from the comments:

1. James Dixon:
Seriously? Is this the best case they have to offer?

Just one example: However, when you look at our deficits, when you look at it from any standpoint, you begin with the fact that the trade deficit of the US in total is 3% of gross domestic product.

First, it's 3% every year. Year after year after year. The effect is cumulative. Secondly, once a factory moves, it doesn't come back. Those jobs are gone forever. The jobs that supposedly replace it won't be in the same area. But I guess everyone is just supposed to abandon their homes and families and move wherever the the jobs are, and move again five years later when things change again, right?

Second: ...and say that libertarian principles dictate that we should have the freedom to trade, whether it be with a foreigner or with somebody domestic. Nobody has a right to interfere in our right to trade with whomever we please when we perceive mutual benefit.

Tariffs don't stop trade. They merely make you pay more for foreign trade. Just as local and state taxes make things cost more in a given area. It's a matter of how we choose to fund government that works to our best advantage. If we choose to do so via tariffs rather than other taxes, well, that's our decision to make.

2. Tim:
To address only one statement. The problem with losing 3% of jobs to free trade is that represents ONE YEAR. Next year, we have another 3% trade deficit, and there go .03x.97 jobs, and pretty soon the labor participation rate is in the .50s. Hmm, where is labor participation in the US? Oh yeah. If it was really free trade, that 3% would be dropping, and would have reversed by now. But when Mexico and China for example keep their wages and currency artificially low and weak respectively, then the bleeding never stops. In Mexico, the rich get very rich indeed, and the Mexican worker gets marginally better off.....and the American worker is hosed. The same for China, where to you think all those Chinese oligarchs got all those billions? Free trade can work...but only if it is really free trade...and it is still just a leveling between the partners. The United States was so rich we should have pulled Mexico right up to where we were...but in Mexico, the rich saw the benefits, and kept the poor poor, and after 20 years there has been no change....except the working class in the US has suffered.

3. dc.sunsets:
Concentrated benefit, diffuse cost is a problem everywhere, but note how "free trade" embeds it down to the level of the individual choosing where to buy toilet paper.

For 50 years (35 years on overdrive) people in the USA have borrowed in order to enter the marketplace.

The result?
1. GDP ramped higher because borrowing isn't backed out of its bottom line. Discussions of GDP today are rendered worthless, like discussion of the plot of a fictional universe novel.
2. The relative utility of being productive fell, because Say's Law (in order to consume, you must first produce) was placed in stasis...or bludgeoned into a coma, thus instead of production, people increasingly engaged in parlor tricks (the FIRE economy) as a means to great wealth.
3. Monetary wealth (US$) in the form of owning bonds began to FLOOD into the world, seemingly from nowhere. Perception of riches (by sitting on piles of IOU's) skyrocketed, encouraging a spending spree in one market after another.
4. Trade deficits exploded as Americans traded IOU-dollars to export-mercantilist foreigners for inexpensive (price-suppressed) trinkets from clothing to iPhones.
5. A sense of unlimited resources pervaded the entire West. Congress had no limit on spending because every bond issued by the US Treasury was deemed WEALTH so every time Congress pissed away another dollar on some boondoggle, the "economy" was richer by #1 the amount spent and #2 the amount of the bond that was issued to spend it.

Yes, this hammer is my only tool so every problem in today's world looks to me like a nail...BUT...every problem in today's world arises, if you peel the onion enough, from this putrid swamp of monetary con-artistry.

Free trade? Where, when "money" is so detached from production? Consumer sovereignty, when the cumulative "concentrated benefits/diffuse costs" end up being a vast NET CATASTROPHE for people in the USA due to stupid political edicts driven by a complete and total misunderstanding of what is really happening?

For nearly my whole life we've lived under a system of monetary dishonesty so profound and pervasive that it has befuddled the minds of nearly everyone, high and low. Karl Denninger's metaphor of the pond where lily pads double in sq.ft. is quite apt; Now, after 20 years of wage and price stagnation despite a quadrillion dollars in "new wealth" "created" by borrowing, the cracks are appearing in the columns holding up this vast house of cards.

Trade policies of the last 50 years helped HIDE the dishonesty by keeping prices of goods artificially suppressed. Immigration policies of the last 50 years helped HIDE the dishonest by keeping wages artificially suppressed.

And the ASSholes who benefited from this system to the tune of million-dollar yachts and beachfront condo penthouses want to keep the game going.

No. Shit. 

What the Alt Right is - Vox Day

What the Alt Right is

In the interest of developing a core Alt Right philosophy upon which others can build.

1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.
2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.
5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
12. The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.
13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.

The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote: "The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."

This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change.

Via VoxDay/Alpha Game a post by Of Wolves And Men :

The Three Pillars of The West

Since I’m going to be talking about The West a lot on this blog. I suppose I’d better stop and define what I mean when I’m doing so.
So what is western civilization? And when did it begin? And why was The West unique?
Western civilization developed in western and central Europe during the Middle Ages and was recognizable as a civilization as early as 900 AD. This civilization then prospered and eventually broke through the Malthusian trap and experienced long term per capita economic growth for the first time in human history; The European Miracle.
So what created The West? How do we define it? This is where things get interesting. The facts of the origin of The West are well understood and not in dispute. What is in dispute and open for discussion is the interpretation of those facts and the relative importance of each of those influences.
The West was created by the convergence of three cultural and historical phenomenons which not only act as foundation stones but also as social forces keeping each other in check. In a great paradox these three forces are in superficial opposition to each other but in combination support the weight of western civilization.
The Three Pillars of The West
1:) The Greek and Roman Legacy
2:) Christianity; Specifically the Medieval Catholic Church
3:) The Customs of the Germanic Barbarians
Note that you are under no obligation to like any of these three things but an educated man of The West should have a at least a basic understanding of each. Even men who openly despise two of the three pillars can still be useful defenders of The West if they believe strongly enough in their pillar of choice.
Let’s examine each in turn.
The Greek and Roman Legacy

The great advantage that The West had as it rose as a civilization was the ability to go through the history and writings of a previous great civilization.
Some people try very hard to draw a direct line from Ancient Greece to the modern West. I really don’t think you can do that and instead believe that it’s best to consider The West as a new civilization formed by the barbarians that conquered Rome and who then used Rome’s legacy as a blueprint for bringing themselves out of the Dark Ages.
It’s hard to overstate just how much of a benefit having access to Roman historians and the Classical Greek writers was to the West. The main result was to provide a deep and widely understood intellectual tradition that was not directly tied to the Church or the State or to any one nation within the greater sphere of western civilization.
I’ve been rather anti-Roman in the past and I personally remain convinced that the Roman Empire did just as much to set back human process as anything they did to advance it. However the Romans left excellent records and we can learn a great deal from them. Improving my understanding of the Classical Era is definitely a weakness I need to shore up in my self-education.
Christianity and the Catholic Church

If the growth of The West and The European Miracle began in the Middle Ages then something in the Middle Ages must have caused that. So what about western Europe was unique enough to merit attention? The existence of the Catholic Church; a powerful international church that had it’s own interests which were often contrary to the interests of the secular rulers. This state of affairs acted as a check and balance against tyrannical rulers.
During the rise of Europe there was actual separation and Church and State as in that the two were not one in the same. This was in direct contrast to virtually every other human civilization and even the Late Roman Empire, where the Emperors themselves were gods.
The monasteries also preserved a lot of the old knowledge and writing of the Classical world and would later found the first universities.
I’m not going to go too deep into Christian theology here because mostly I don’t have to. Aspects of the Christian faith are found through Western society, cultures and thought. Why even modern secular atheism is nothing but Christianity heresy if you stop to think about it.
I do find it somewhat interesting that a small but noticeable number of Alt-Right men have converted to Catholicism. Food for thought if nothing else.
The Customs of the Germanic Barbarians

The third pillar of The West and the one that is most difficult to precisely draw a picture of are the customs of the Germanic Tribes; who had very different customs than the conquered and subjugated peoples of the former Roman Empire. Sadly these tribes did not always leave good records (they were barbarians) and trying to study them is often an exercise in frustration.
Still tribes such a the Franks, the Lombards and the Saxons gave their traditions and national character to the emerging Europe and their names to geographic regions. Subtly some of these ridiculous customs linger even until today.
The right to bare arms for example comes from the barbarian custom that owning arms was the sign of a freeman and that at a tribal meeting the men of the tribe would signal their agreement with the chieftain or speaker by clashing their arms together. This became a settled right among the Anglo-Saxon people.
Were they Pagans? Vicious blood thirsty Heathens. Of course! At least at the start of Europe’s formation. The process of creating The West involved slowly converting those tribes into the Christian faith and into the growing civilization spreading across the continent.
The Celts (who weren’t really Germanic) converted very quickly to Catholicism since the new faith almost perfectly fit their cultural needs. Other tribes and barbarians however needed a great deal of persuading; usually of the sharp pointy metal variety before entering into the communion of Rome. Charlemagne was an especially good persuader, in that regard.
What about the Norse? Where do they fit in? Well the Norse were just another set of Germanic tribes, among the last to convert to Christianity. They simply put up one hell of a fight before they did so. We also have better accounts of the Norse customs and beliefs because they were among the last of the Pagans and therefore there was a more developed Europe to chronicle their deeds, or rather their misdeeds. The Viking Age ended once the overwhelm majority of Scandinavians considered themselves Christians but it did make for a couple of exciting centuries.

Besides the Norse are just fun to study since they were an uncompromisingly masculine culture.
(Come to think of it, so were the Romans at the height of their power.)
Quick reaction to that Reason article and Vox’s Day’s response.
I was about halfway done writing this article (yes I’m a very slow writer) when I run across a Reason.com article on how Donald Trump is against western civilization and also Vox Day’s rather scalding response. Since I’m writing this article from a right-libertarian point of view, I suppose throwing in my two cents on this is a worthwhile endeavour.
Reason Article on how Trump is against Western Civilization by Robby Soave
http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/06/the-alt-right-is-wrong-trump-is-an-enemy
Vox Day’s Response:
http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2016/04/thus-proving-alt-right-right.html
Classical Liberalism is an end result of western civilization not a root cause of it.
As Vox points out there is a matter of centuries between the establishment of western civilization and the rise of Classical Liberalism. I count six or seven centuries between the founding of The West and the first serious writings in the Classical Liberal school of thought. Now I’m a huge fan of Libertarian thinking but I consider liberty to be a universal human value so the questions remains. Why Europe? Why only Europe? Again it was the conditions in western and central Europe that allowed commerce and liberty to flourish.
Western Civilization has at least a 1100 year history; if you only take into account the last two of three centuries (like Mr Soave is) you’re missing out on an enormous part of that history and legacy.
The importance of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment gets vastly overblown by people like Mr. Soave who cannot grasp that the Middle Ages were not the Dark Ages and therefore find themselves having to completely disregard all human history before Adam Smith.
Besides any fan of science fiction author David Weber knows that the industrial revolution actually began in the Middle Ages using waterwheels.
To recap
-The West was fully formed by about 900-950 AD.
-The European Miracle of long term economic growth begins in the Late Middle Ages. Roughly 1300 AD (Long before the timeline suggested by Mr. Soave.)
-The Renaissance was not that interesting (unless you like paintings.)
-Continued economic growth over the centuries lead to the formation of a tax paying middle class.
-That middle class began to demand their political rights.
-Therefore the Enlightenment and rise of Classical Liberalism was a direct result of the Middle Ages.
Horse first, then cart.
Thoughts on Trump
I am not a cheerful supporter of Donald Trump. However the night is dark, the hour is late and it is important to consider all options.
War is the health of the State. Therefore the primary concern of the libertarian activist is to avoid, prevent, or deescalate violent conflict. Intentionally losing a conflict however is not a requirement of Classical Liberal thought. Donald Trump’s ‘isolationist’ policies buys America time to recover from the disasters of the War on Terrorism and gets The West a reprieve, a chance to rediscover itself and push back the cultural Marxist hordes.
There is no true antiwar candidate in the current US presidential race but Donald Trump is the ‘less war” candidate. He is the least likely candidate to get America into another series of wars of choice or push Russia and China into a permanent anti-American Alliance. That ALONE should get him the libertarian vote!
If Walter “Freaking” Block is willing to support Donald Trump then I’m a little confused as to how anyone at Reason could oppose Trump on purely libertarian grounds.
History and The Struggle for Liberty: Part One
https://mises.org/library/1-european-miracle
This is part one of a ten part audio lecture by historian Ralph Raico (From 2004.) This lecture series appears to be where I got many of the concepts that form the core of this article. While the enjoyment of the whole series may be subject to taste I highly recommend part one.
Update: In reaction to the Apr 6^th Robby Soave article I would definitely recommend the listening to at least first two parts of this lecture series if you can find or make time do so.

"Cuckservative" - Review by Keoni Galt / Hawaiian Libertarian

Playing the Red Card to Trump the Cucks 

by Keoni Galt 

"And what of the original Americans, the natives who lived on this continent before the first Europeans arrived? What did this melting mean for them? Unfortunately, that is something that the native-born, culturally American, European-descended population is in the process of finding out as it declines in the face of ever-growing numbers of immigrants from vastly different cultures possessing rival traditions, ideologies, and agendas of their own."

There are generally two kinds of cultural change agents that work to progress society towards the utopian dystopian ideals of our Brave New World Order. The first type are those who self-identify as the liberal, progressive leftist, who openly and proudly promotes the overthrow of classic American cultural heritage aka the so-called hegemony of white-Christian-patriarchal-privilege. As detestable as they are, at least they are somewhat honest when they state their goals and objectives in attempting to change the face of the nation.

The other kind of change agent is far more insidious and has caused far more damage to the fabric of Western Civilization, and they have done so while supposedly bearing the standard of opposition against the liberal-progressive leftists. These are they who claim to be a part of the opposition of the progressive leftists and cultural marxists working to overthrow traditional American society, but their actions do not match up with their words. They are the controlled opposition that have co-opted the original conservative movement.

They have previously been called many different names, from RINOs to NeoCons, yet none of these terms have ever really had much of an effect on those who bore the mantle of "conservative" in bad faith. But the latest term they have been branded with, Cuckservative, has been the most effective rhetorical weapon to date ever devised to strike them with. In the past year, the meme wars on teh Interewebz based on the newly coined term has hit them right between the eyes.

Who are the cuckservatives? Ye shall know them by their shrieks when they are confronted with teh tweets.

Seizing upon the opportunity of the proliferation of such a popular and effective meme, John Red Eagle and Vox Day, two Indians (feathers, not dots) have just released a new book, Cuckservative: How "Conservatives" Betrayed America. 

As stated in my review of Vox's previous release, SJWs Always Lie: 

"I bought this book because I wanted to indulge in schadenfraude! I wanted to help the Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil punch back twice as hard at the snivelling hordes of brainwashed lickspittles and useful idiots that march under the banner of the SJW. No War but Culture War! This book is a badly needed, long overdue counterattack against the long march. For that, I consider it money and time well spent."  

For much the same reasoning, I bought Cuckservative on it's official release date this past Monday from Amazon, and finished reading it by Wednesday. I enjoyed it and I did learn a few things that I never knew before, such as the origins of the term "melting pot." But more importantly, our Injun authors give us a historical perspective on nations, cultures and heritage, and the effects mass immigration had on them in many different times and places in world history.  From antiquity to the present day, they make a strong case that mass immigration should be defined as nothing less than an act of war and conquest.

Of particular interest, was their identification of the source of American culture and heritage that is severely endangered from the continued influx of foreigners unsuited and non-amenable to America's nation-founding ideals:

As much as it has changed over the years, American culture still has very specific historical roots in English culture and history. Observe that we say "English," not British, as the latter is more of a multicultural political construct from an amalgamation of four nations than a true national culture of its own. "American" is arguably well on its way to becoming something more akin to "British" rather than "English." Those who value American culture, and who would prefer to avoid seeing that come to pass, would do well to develop an understanding of how America's ancestral English culture came to be.

While going through a brief rundown of the history of English culture, our Redskin co-authors identify two primary characteristics of this "English" culture that served as the foundation for American culture: self-reliant independence of the citizenry and the limitation of the powers of a society's rulers.

As they point out, these cultural values are primarily upheld through cultural transmission of a largely heterogeneous populace from one generation to the next, and that subsequent hordes of migrants with different values and beliefs will inevitably change them.

There was no magic dirt. There was no shining city on a hill. All that was required for irrevocable change was the arrival of sufficient numbers of people with a separate culture of their own who were both willing and able to hold onto it in the face of native opposition.

I came away with one very important idea from this work: the litmus test for determining who is and who is not a cuckservative. While they offer a twenty-two point bullet list as a field guide for identifying a cuckservative in chapter 4, all one need do is to simply look at any so-called "right" wing politician or pundit and review their statements on the issue of mass migration (both legal and illegal; documented and undocumented) from the third world to the Anglo-sphere: the US, UK, Europe, Canada and Australia.

Then compare and contrast with their stance on Israel's strict, race-based immigration policy (for which I support Israel's right to do so, 100%!) and that is all the info you need to identify a cuckservative.

The Cuckservative are the ones promoting the myths of the melting pot and magic dirt to support the continued migrations of non-white, non-Christians into all of these formerly white Christian majority countries. The reasons usually given by such cuckservatives is based mostly upon the appeal that conservatives must avoid being labelled racist by the left.

In addition to a stated fear of being labelled as racist, many cuckservatives who attribute the need for supporting mass migrations, base it on an argument of falsified doctrine of Christian charity, particularly the parable of the Good Samaritan. John and Vox use both statistics, logic and scriptural citations to totally destroy churchian-styled arguments based on the twisting of scripture.

While the book is filled with facts, statistics, charts and other evidence to make their case against "conservatives", their strongest rhetoric (at least for me personally, as I can certainly relate) comes from playing the red card:

Import people, and you import their culture. Import them on a small scale, as with the Normans, and they may assimilate, but in doing so, they will still influence yours. Import them on a larger scale, and they'll keep their own culture, which will conflict with yours. Import them on a large enough scale, as with the Saxons, and your culture will be the one assimilated. And if that happens, you find yourselves at the mercy of whatever the newcomers decide to do with you.

Trust us. We know. Both of our Native American cultures have been all but eliminated. Our tribes were forcibly expelled from their lands and forced onto reservation, where they still live today. Neither of us knows more than a few words of the languages our forefathers used to speak before the arrival of Spanish and English immigrants.

The Magic Dirt won't save you.

I've got my own brown card to play, and I'll throw it in with John Red Eagle's and Vox Day's red cards into the middle of the table. As the descendent of a marginalized, occupied, dispossessed and miscegenated-unto-near-extinction indigenous native people, I too echo the warning to those who still value the founding American ideals of self reliance and limited Government.

I see the new breed of conqueror, and their desired objectives would be far worse for us all, than the life we managed to make under the regime of the American pale face and it's original foundation of self-reliance and limited Government.

I see the new breed of conqueror and I understand their overriding goal is to bring all of the world's populations down to a lowest common denominator of miscegenated homogeneity with no discernible cultural heritage or identity that may one day serve as a rallying point to resist their emerging tyranny of global governance.

I see the new breed of conqueror and I believe it is the defining fight of our lives to resist their agenda of mass enfeeblement, arrested development and over-reliance and dependence on a centralized, global and tyrannical regime to govern every aspect of our micro-managed lives. Make no mistake about it, this is ultimately the end goal of those that the cuckservatives are working for. To get their Brave New World Order, America as it was originally founded must first be destroyed, and the cucking of conservatism is one of the primary means for THEY to accomplish it.

As John and Vox put it:

The uncomfortable truth is that cuckservatism not only betrays America's posterity, it also betrays the intent of the other clauses of the Preamble to the Constitution, including, "to form a more perfect Union","establish Justice","insure domestic Tranquility","provide for the common defence", and "promote the General Welfare", five things that adding 60 million immigrants in 50 years have manifestly not done.

One could make a very strong argument that thanks to their cuckservative ideology, America's self-styled conservatives have literally betrayed the entire purpose of the Constitution of the United States of America, and in doing so, they have put the very survival of the nation at risk.

Yes indeed, these two Native American Injuns have in fact done exactly that in writing Cuckservative - How "Conservatives" Betrayed America. 

Best heed their warning, pale face.

by Keoni Galt

Vox Day Book - Cuckservative

The third collaboration

Yesterday Mike Cernovich announced that he would be publishing his next book, Last Man Standing, with Castalia House. He also announced that he had accepted a position as Editor-at-Large with Castalia House. What he did not mention, at my request, is that he is also working with Castalia House on a third project. I asked him not to mention it because I wanted to tell you myself.

As dark lords go, I am, as most of you know, unusually civil. Having asked one of my GGinParis co-hosts to write a foreword for one of my books, I thought it would be a grievous breach of etiquette to fail to request the same of the other. So, I am pleased to announce that the aforementioned Editor-at-Large has already written the foreword for my next book, which I have written with a fellow American Indian (albeit one from a different tribe). It is expected to be released before the end of year. It is a hard-hitting book in the vein of SJWAL, but addresses an even more important and controversial subject: the politics of American immigration.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America contains an extremely important phrase that is almost always ignored by those who appeal to it, or to the men who wrote it, in defense of immigration. It states:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The key phrase is this: “to ourselves and our posterity.” The blessings of liberty are not to be secured to all the nations of the world, to the tired and huddled masses, or to the wretched refuse of the teeming shores of other lands. They are to be secured to our children, and their children, and their children's children.

To sacrifice their interests to the interests of children in other lands is to betray both past and future America. It is to permit an alien posterity, like the newly hatched cuckoo in another bird's nest, to eliminate our own, and in doing so, defeat the purpose of the Constitution. It is, like the cuckolded husband, to raise the children of another man instead of one's sons and daughters. It is, in a word, cuckservative.

Cuckservative: How "Conservatives" Betrayed America will be published in December by Castalia House.

How Pedophilia Will Be Normailsed

Quote comments from commenters at an NRO article that rationalises pedophilia, because they are insightful:

Matt:

1. Organize
2. Humanize
3. Legalize
4. Legitimize
5. Litigate
6. Repeat
Stage Two doesn't seem too unreasonable, does it? How many bloody times do we have to get rope-a-doped by the same shtick before we recognize that it's part of a much larger campaign which has been going on for generations, now?
Priests, pastors, and psychiatrists receive special training to lovingly and thoughtfully help people with terrible issues like this one who need help. Privately. There's absolutely NO reason for anybody to work through this problem publicly. There's absolutely no reason to challenge the one hysterical taboo the American people have which is fully justified.
And can we impose a permanent moratorium on atheists needling Christians on how their faith is supposed to be expressed? It's not like we go around telling atheists how they're supposed to tip their fedoras and embed cheese crumbs in their neckbeards.

Dingus Rattenberg:

Step one is chipping away at the legal and social norms associated with pedophilia. Our attention is deflected carefully away from the monstrosity of adult-child sexual attraction (calling it an "orientation," for example), and redirected toward pity for the offender. Do our laws really need to be so harsh? Is the extreme social stigma really justified? After all, look at these poor fellows. They're very sad.

Step two. Graphic tales of violence done against pedophiles or suspected pedophiles, usually by vigilantes (to shock comfortable bourgeois liberals) but also law enforcement (to shock civil libertarians), are rubbed in our noses. These cases will be easy to find, since reactionary pushback to step one is practically guaranteed. People who really hate pedophiles are nasty and evil and violent bigots will be the implied message. Meanwhile, "studies" conducted at state-sponsored universities will "find" that adult-child sexual contact really isn't all that psychologically harmful to children. Rather, our superiors will inform us, the reason children suffer post-contact depression is because of the "social stigma" attached to such relationships. We will be encouraged to be supportive and understanding "allies" of pedophilic relationships, since, after all, a simple attitude change on our parts will prevent depression and suicide.

Step three. At about this time, the real legal push to lower statutes of limitation begins. New "studies" show that children in fact benefit, in some very loosely-defined way, from early sexual contact with adults. The most progressive and forward-thinking parents in the most progressive and forward-thinking states begin lending their children for "play dates" with pedophiles, framed as mutually beneficial arrangements whereby children are therapeutically socialized into sexual maturity. Why risk letting some stranger take your child's virginity in a drunken haze, when it can all be done with the help of a vetted accomplice in the comfort of one's own home? Win-win.

Step four. Pedophiles will begin to emerge more frequently in pop culture and mass media. A record label, for instance, may promote an otherwise wild, hard-headed rapper's soulful ballad mourning society's unequal treatment of what is really the "same love." Mainline protestantism (if it still exists at this point) will ordain open pedophiles. The Catholic Church will be praised for its leading role. Cases involving the "rights" of pedophiles will have trickled up to the Supreme Court. You can fill in the rest.

Thanks to the Great Cuckservatives of the National Review Online.

UPDATE: Also see this Vox Day Post:

SJWs shift the Narrative and Thoughts on tolerance

Rejection = disbelief + opposition
Tolerance = disbelief + passivity
Submission = disbelief + support
Denialism = belief + opposition
Acceptance = belief + passivity
Celebration = belief + support

 

UPDATE UPDATE:  RAMZPAUL: NRO and Salon Fight Pedophobia

Vox Day - William S. Lind's "ON WAR" and "What Cultural Marxism Is and Isn't"

What "Cultural Marxism" is and isn't

This is very relevant today, since it is not only an excerpt from William S. Lind's ON WAR, which is being officially released later today by Castalia House, but a topic that has been the subject of some debate among GamerGaters opposed to the pinkshirts' attempts to transform the game industry in a conventionally cultural marxist manner.

Most people wrongly understand cultural Marxism to mean: "cultural efforts to establish an actual global Marxist system". This is not correct. Marxism is a political and economic system that has been repeatedly refined since Karl Marx laid down his pen. It might be a little less confusing to describe it as "cultural Marxianism", but that's being excessively pedantic. The matter is readily clarified by the essay entitled "What is Political Correctness", as the father of 4th Generation War theory explains the historical roots of political correctness in cultural Marxism:

Political Correctness is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. Its history goes back not to the 1960s but to World War I. Before 1914, Marxist theory said that if a major war broke out in Europe, the workers of every country would join together in a revolution to overthrow capitalism and replace it with international socialism. But when war came, that did not happen. What had gone wrong?

Two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true Marxian class interests that Communism was impossible in the West until traditional culture and Christianity were destroyed. When Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik government in Hungary in 1919, one of his first acts was introducing sex education into the Hungarian schools. He knew that destroying traditional sexual morals would be a major step toward destroying Western culture itself.

Lukacs became a major influence on a Marxist think tank established in 1923 at Frankfurt University in Germany, the Institute for Social Research, commonly known as the Frankfurt School. When Max Horkheimer took over as director of the Frankfurt School in 1930, he set about in earnest to do Lukacs’ bidding by translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms. Other Frankfurt School members devoted to this intellectually difficult task were Theodor Adorno, Eric Fromm, Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse. Theirs was not the Marxism of the Soviet Union—Moscow considered them heretics—but it was Marxism nonetheless.

The Frankfurt School’s key to success was crossing Marx with Freud. They argued that just as under capitalism everyone lived in a state of economic oppression, so under Western culture people lived under psychological repression. From psychology they also drew the technique of psychological conditioning. Want to “normalize” homosexuality? Just show television program after television program where the only normal-seeming white male is homosexual.

In 1933 the Frankfurt School moved from Germany to New York City. There, its products included “critical theory,” which demands constant, destructive criticism of every traditional social institution, starting with the family. It also created a series of “studies in prejudice,” culminating in Adorno’s immensely influential book, The Authoritarian Personality, which argued that anyone who defends traditional culture is a “fascist” and also mentally ill. That is why anyone who now dares defy PC gets sent to sensitivity training, which is psychological conditioning designed to produce submission.

In other words, it is not a tool used to establish Marxism, but rather a perversion of Marxism aimed at the culture rather than the political economy. Anyone attempting to understand the pinkshirts of #GamerHate must first understand that cultural Marxism is real and that it is the underlying basis for the SJWs' current attack on the game industry. And it is worth pointing out that any #GamerGaters attempting to defeat them would do very well to understand that they are presently engaging in a 4GW struggle, and that in that struggle, they are the insurgents.

Vox Day: Answering a Simple Question

Vox Day responds to a question:


Will Shetterly poses questions for me and for NK Jemisin. I don't know if she will see fit to answer him, but I certainly don't mind doing so:

What do you want, besides book sales? You both have strongly-held beliefs, Critical Race Theory and Human Biodiversity, but you're both silent about the practical application of those beliefs.

Vox Day, you say:

"I have repeatedly pointed out that the existence of different human sub-species and/or races does not make those different sub-species and/or races any less validly human. A dog is a dog whether it is a Bichon Frise or a Great Dane. A man is a man whether he is Yoruba or Prussian. My basic argument on race and civilization can be most accurately summarized as the observation that if you wish to pull a sled, you would be well advised to select Siberian huskies rather than chihuahuas or pit bulls."

If people with your beliefs were in power, what changes would there be? Legal segregation of the races as you understand them? A ban on miscegenation? Breeding programs to increase the virtues you see in the different human races, stronger blacks and smarter Asians to serve the more "alpha" whites?

Let me first point out something that many people fail to keep in mind when they are occupied with being offended at something I have said. I am a libertarian, so it should always be kept in mind that I am intrinsically skeptical of the idea that government can be effectively utilized to solve most societal problems, or even avoid making them worse, regardless of how serious we all agree those problems happen to be.  The fact that I point to something as being a problem should NEVER be taken as an implicit suggestion that the solution can be found in government action.

With regards to race, I would be more than content to see the U.S. federal government and other governments across the West firmly respect the right to self-determination, the right to free speech, and the right to freedom of economic association on the part of individual, as well as the political sovereignty of the several States.

This would likely lead to legal segregation in some states, most likely beginning, ironically enough, with the States where Hispanics are expected to soon be the majority. In most of the rest, I expect a return to Constitutional federalism and the concept of democratic laboratories would merely lead to bans on enforced desegregation and government violations of the freedom of association; history indicates that people have a tendency to naturally segregate as that is how most of the various population groups were formed in the first place.

I do not support bans on miscegenation nor do I believe they would be required in any environment that permitted genuine freedom of speech and association. Despite being inundated with heavy doses of pro-miscegenation and pro-equalitarian propaganda in the media, relatively few women of any race have shown themselves to be open to sexual involvement with men of other races.

Being an anti-eugenicist, I do not support breeding programs of any kind, especially not government-sponsored programs.

As for the idea of stronger blacks and smarter Asians serving whites, that could not be further from my own position on ideal interracial relations. My belief is that every population group, every human sub-species, every nation, is better served by furthering a homogeneous group interest.  To put it crudely, whites would do well to pick their own cotton and count their own money, blacks would do well to build their own power stations and grow their own crops, and yellows would do well to develop their own technologies and establish their own university systems. Let Israel be Israel and let Myanmar be Myanmar.

Inter-societal communication and assistance is a good thing, so long as it is the sort that involves teaching men to fish and not fishing for them... and if the fishermen are left alone to deal with the consequences of their catch. Trade is generally good. Information exchange is generally good. Even immigration can beneficial in small and limited doses. But the benefits of moderation does not extend to the extremes. For example, trade can benefit both sides, but truly free trade will inevitably destroy the more prosperous side.

It should be noted that the consequences of mass migration are all but indistinguishable from the effects of invasion and occupation, and multi-ethnic societies have shown a strong historical tendency to collapse amidst vicious ethnic violence. No one who recalls the intra-black violence in Rwanda, the intra-white violence in Yugoslavia, or the intra-yellow violence in Vietnam should be misled into thinking that expanding the range of population heterogeneousity is going to alleviate, rather than exacerbate, the eventual inter-ethnic violence.  Ms Jemisin may be more right than she knows about how everyone will eventually be forced to take a side, whether they want to or not.

I understand that three generations of Americans who have been raised to venerate the Civil Rights movement will find it hard, if not impossible, to grasp that history may ultimately prove to be firmly on the side of those they have always believed to be monsters of bigotry. But if what logic suggests is the most probable outcome indeed comes to pass, I suspect that forced segregation and non-violent ethnic cleansing will be the best case scenario in consequence of the damnable social engineering of the grand multicultural experiment that began in 1965.

It may already be too late for a peaceful return to historical segregation patterns. But if history is an even remotely reliable guide, the West will return to them one way or another. And keep in mind that my expectations of the future have nothing whatsoever to do with my personal preferences, any more than I wanted to see the global financial system seize up when I predicted the 2008 economic crisis six years before it happened.

There is a flaw in someone's assumptions. The error may be on my part. But based on the known historical patterns as well as the way in which increased integration throughout the West has observably increased racial tensions rather than eliminating them as the multiculturalists so confidently asserted, I very much doubt it.

So, to answer the original question, what do I want? I want to preserve the greatest, most advanced, and most humane civilization the human race has ever known. I want the West to avoid descending into violence and chaos on a scale that will threaten to end our advanced civilization as we know it. And I believe continued mass migration, forced desegregation, reconciliation, government intervention, and racial integration only serve to increase the likelihood of a nightmarish scenario taking place.