The Folly of the Conservative

              The Folly of the Conservative

In the 2014 film ‘The Judge’ Robert Duvall and Robert Downey Jr. represent two poles of the legal system where Duvall plays a hard-bitten conservative judge who kills a man who through his mistake murdered a 16 year old local girl and Downey plays his high-flying defence counsel son. In ‘The Judge’ we see Duvall desperately cling onto the legal system in the belief that the system is always right and just and will exonerate him because of well… justice. Only to find this belief in the absolute justice of the legal system shown to be nothing more than a legal fiction because – as Joseph de Maistre might put it – the system exists as the representation of the power of the state not as a neutral judge handing down blind justice and therefore is neither neutral or blind but rather extremely partisan.

The film ends with Duvall’s character Judge Joseph Palmer being imprisoned for four years by the state because he refuses to let this fictitious belief go and continually incriminates himself by absolute honesty while the system gleefully uses this honesty to crucify him. It is only through the efforts of Downey’s character Henry ‘Hank’ Palmer that his father is saved from the death sentence on the charge of murder in the first degree. 

The message is clear in so far as conservativism is a belief – I wouldn’t even go as far as to call it a philosophy – that rests upon the blind adherence to the fiction that things would be better ‘if only’ such and such was kept as it is or returned to. It is not a coherent belief system in and of itself but rather an attempt to hold back the evolution of society and culture by holding it in stasis.

This belief in stasis is usually supported by some kind of vague religiosity – Christian or otherwise – whereby it is claimed that if only ‘we prayed more’ and did less of X, Y and/or Z then things would be ‘different’. The reality is of course that every ideal worthy of the name must revolutionize society and then proceed to evolve based on its own ideological premises or abandoned those ideological premises to become a new ideal.

Yet this ideal must not only be alive but energetic. Conservatism is by its very vagueness not even an ideal, but a kind of fossilized superstition that bases itself not on real change and putting into practice what it preaches. Rather it is an attempt by its adherents to retard socio-cultural as well as economic change not because said changes are bad or will result in evil consequences, but rather because the conservatives themselves don’t want those changes to occur before they die.

Why is this?

Conservatives are the NIMBYs of politics and rather than embracing new ideas or revitalizing older ones. They simply sit down on the ground and scream ‘No! You can’t do that! I forbid it!’ until they are blue in the face.

They don’t say why it would be a bad idea or result in evil consequences but rather squeal about how ‘when they were young’ it was ‘different’/’better’. They want the economic and technological benefits of modernity, but they refuse to comprehend that they must evolve or die. Yet conservatism does evolve but not in the way of a vital ideology such as National Socialism.

The Catholic philosopher Fulton Sheen understood just when this when he declared that:

‘Every Liberal is a reactionary; he is in reaction to the last form of liberalism.’ (1)

What Sheen is telling us is that liberalism and conservatism are two broad ‘big tents’ of those people who want change for the sake of change (Liberalism) and those who don’t want change for the sake of not wanting change (Conservatism).

Neither camp have an actual ideology but rather they are acting in opposition to one another and that the action of ‘conservatism’ on liberalism merely produces a new slightly less liberal synthesis, which in turn means that the ‘new’ ‘conservatives’ of any era are merely the liberals of the prior era not proponents of a new vital philosophy.

The father of neo-conservative thought James Burnham, for example, understood just this when he declared that liberalism not conservatism was the true weltanschauung (= worldview) of the United States (2) and that nationalism is ‘antithetical’ to this liberalism (i.e. ‘conservatism’). (3) Burnham understand that it was not ‘conservatism’ that was the true enemy of liberalism but rather National Socialism. (4)

Burnham was quite right to declare that National Socialism was the true enemy of liberalism and also made it very clear that National Socialism is not a form of conservatism, (5) because – as Sheen points out – National Socialism absorbs the individual into the totality of one’s race and thus places the emphasis on the collective good of the race – the actual meaning of ‘Socialism’ in National Socialism – rather than the purely individual good. (6)

Conservatism and liberalism both adhere to the principle of the individual good and not collective good and oppose vital ideologies (such as National Socialism) as well as fossilized ones (such as Marxism) that place the emphasis on the collective not the individual good.

Sheen states that:

‘Nature is concerned only with the species. Individuals may perish by the millions, but nature is indifferent as long as species keep their pattern. Humanity, however, is concerned with persons, not with species, and each person has sovereign, inalienable rights and is just as important as any other person in the world.’ (7)

What Sheen fails to cogently explain is where these ‘sovereign, inalienable rights’ come from – other than blithely claiming they ‘come from God’ – or why any individual ‘is as important as any other’.

The nineteenth century French philosopher Joseph de Maistre might be forgiven for raucously laughing from the heavens at Sheen’s presumptive claims in defence of ‘Christian individualism’. 

Since he rightly pointed out – as I am sure Sheen as a Professor of Philosophy himself was well aware – in his 1814 ‘Essay on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions’ that:

‘No constitution results from deliberation; the rights of the people are never written, or never except as simple declarations of pre-existing rights not written, of which nothing more can be said than that they exist because they exist.’ (8)

When Sheen fails to point out and answer is the challenge laid down by de Maistre in that an individual cannot have rights for the sake of having rights, but rather these must have been ‘generated’ from somewhere and there is no evidence beyond blind assertion and credulous belief that these were ‘generated’ by God.

Instead de Maistre points out that these were ‘generated’ autonomously by the needs of the state and were not ‘given by God’:

‘The rights of the people, properly so called, proceed almost always from the concessions of sovereigns, and then it is possible to trace them historically; but the rights of the sovereign and of the aristocracy, have neither date nor known authors.

These concessions themselves have always been preceded by a state of things which rendered them necessary, and which did not depend on the sovereign.’ (9)

Therefore when we look back to the quintessentially conservative behaviour of Robert Duvall’s character in ‘The Judge’ we can see that his absolute trust in ‘blind justice’ and the legally neutral position of the state is based on the false assumption that the state is only the blind instrument of some undefinable, ineffable ‘right to justice’ rather than the origin of both what ‘justice’ is and how said ‘justice’ is executed.

This is the folly of conservatism in that it is a belief that is not based on the cold, hard reality of the situation, but rather on the nostalgic self-congratulatory belief that things ‘used to be better’ and thus should be a certain way. It ignores the fact that ‘justice’ is not blind or neutral and that it is the state – not anything else – that determines what ‘justice’ is and how it is to be carried out.

Indeed as Sheen points out; just because things are traditional or new does not mean they are actually right or the truth (10) despite liberalism’s generalized hostility to whatever it perceives to be such. (11)

Instead we must look at things based not upon what upon we would like to believe but rather on what is objectively true. Sheen himself gets very close to this in the aforementioned passage when he states that:

‘Nature is concerned only with the species. Individuals may perish by the millions, but nature is indifferent as long as species keep their pattern. Humanity, however, is concerned with persons, not with species, and each person has sovereign, inalienable rights and is just as important as any other person in the world.’ (12)

The first part of Sheen’s paragraph shows that he understands that nature is not concerned with individuals only the species and that the life and wishes of an individual must by their very nature be sublimated to the needs and objectives of the species.

Yet he radically veers away from the logical conclusion that the concept of ‘humanity’ is functionally irrelevant – much as the belief that every ant is really an autonomous individual and cannot be classified or understood as working for the greater good of his or her ant colony – and that what matters is man as part of nature not the nonsensical idea that man is above nature.

If we but view man as a part of nature rather than being above nature per de Maistre’s points about the state autonomously generating ‘rights’ and that these rights are enforced not by some external inalienable ‘right’ from above but rather by the ruler’s use of ‘might’ – as explained in the famous and much reprinted 1896 book ‘Might is Right’ – then it necessary follows that the foundation of all ‘rights’ is the state and that the foundation of the state is its ability to enforce its will.

As the German thinker Friedrich von Bernhardi noted:

‘Might gives the right to occupy and conquer’ (13) because struggle is the only truly universal law of nature (14) and the simple fact that – to quote the sixteenth century Italian theologian Lorenzo Scupoli – ‘our entire life on earth is [one of] continual warfare.’ (15)

Hilaire Belloc – following others such as Bernhardi (16) as well as Burnham himself - (17) understood that struggle and conflict is the only true medium by which human affairs are settled be they between individuals, states and/or nations. (18) This is because – as Sheen notes - ‘the world judges us by results’ not by our intentions or what we claim we would have done. (19)

When there is no conflict and no warfare then there is no struggle and without struggle there cannot be evolution and without evolution then we will not survive any change in our environment.

This inability to evolve to meet a new situation leads to the simple conclusion – stated again by Sheen – that ‘nations are not often murdered; they more often commit suicide.’ (20)

In other words; when we talk about the state and its success and failure we must see things not in terms of simple success or failure of policies but rather as a failure to read the situation and adapt. 

This in itself is a peculiar problem of so-called ‘representative democracies’ so beloved of modern ‘conservative’ in that the concept is an ideal which does not - and indeed cannot - exist because human nature and competition for resources – as Edward Wilson observed in his ground-breaking book ‘Sociobiology’ – render it a social impossibility. Due to this ‘representative democracies’ inevitably slide further and further into a combination of open plutocracy (rule by the few) and hidden kleptocracy (rule by thieves).

Since to quote the anti-communist conservative lawyer Donald Johnson: ‘mass approval is the basis of dictatorship: and not, in itself, of democracy.’ (21)

The realities of governance are that only a strong authoritarian non-democratic government can offer what Sheen calls the ‘three Ps’ that the people desire: ‘Power, Police and Politics’. (22)

In other words what people truly want is:  to have their say and to have it enforced by the state.

It is by fulfilling the desires of the people (i.e. mass approval aka plebiscitary democracy) that the non-democratic authoritarian state continues to rule while so-called ‘representative democracies’ merely create vague parties who are ‘rigidly organised political machines with a tendency to get large majorities’. (23) That isn’t ‘listening to the people’ or ‘letting them have their say’ any more than herding cattle into a slaughterhouse is natural selection.

People choose their leaders for what they believe they will do for them rather than for any idealistic reason or commitment to anyone ‘party’ per se. (24) Party loyalty such as it is absolutely nothing to do with idealism among the vast majority of the population but rather a conviction that should such a leader – as people vote for the person in charge not for the party’s swathe of faceless political bureaucrats – (25) get ‘into office’ then they will be rewarded with what they want (aka the ‘rent seeking’ of the French proto-libertarian philosopher Frederic Bastiat).

To paraphrase the American classicist Revilo Oliver: ‘representative democracy’ boils down to stampeding the public through polling stations with big, glossy photos of prospective ‘leaders’ every few years. (27)

Therefore only the non-democratic authoritarian state is – contrary to received wisdom which is actually the gas-lighting of the people by the modern kleptocratic plutocracy via the medium of ‘political parties’ – truly democratic in that it is plebiscitary – as ancient Athenian democracy was – and goes direct to the people rather than through the bureaucratic intermediary of the ‘political party’.

National Socialism did just this when it repeatedly went direct to the German people – rather than asking the ‘representatives of the people’ in the Reichstag – such as on 12 November 1933 (for approval of Germany’s withdrawal from the League of Nations), 19 August 1934 (for approval for Hitler to become the President of Germany), 29 March 1936 (for approval to re-militarize the Rhineland) and 10 April 1938 (for approval to incorporate Austria into the Third Reich).

When was the last time that the federal government directly asked you for an opinion on its foreign policy?

Not recently I’d wager.

That is the beauty of true democracy: it doesn’t require bloated, bureaucratic political parties as so many so-called ‘conservatives’ are keen on despite claiming to be the champions of ‘limited government’.

The fact that so many so-called ‘conservatives’ who champion ‘limited government’ ardently support a system – ‘representative democracy’ - that intrinsically lends itself to the creation of multiple unwieldy bloated highly bureaucratic organizations – political parties, the courts, government departments, non-governmental organizations, quangos to name but a few -  is ironic and demonstrates yet again – as we saw with the failure of ‘conservative’ thinkers like Burnham and Sheen to apply their own thought – that ‘conservatives’ do not (and will not) practice what they preach and are in fact just old school liberals who really don’t care about transgender bathrooms so long as they are installed after they die.

You can see this again in the fact that the ‘conservatives’ have consistently failed to implement their own ‘anti-immigration’ policies that are necessarily predicated on maintaining on a racially homogenous country – otherwise anti-immigration policies don’t make much sense other than as a limiter to state expenditure on social security/benefits/poor relief – but yet also harp on about ‘humanity’ while simultaneously preaching the ‘supremacy of the individual’.

For example Sheen talks about how: ‘an attack from the outside solidifies a nation and strengths its moral fibre.’ (27)

But then makes an appeal to individuality when faced with other political ideas which ‘solidify the nation and strengthen its moral fibre’:

‘The totalitarian views of Nazism, Fascism and Communism are wrong for they assume that the individual man is intrinsically corrupt and can be made tame, docile and obedient only by the force of the collectivity enshrined in a dictator.’ (28)

And then suddenly when Sheen wants people to be a collective – i.e. in obedient service to the Roman Catholic Church – they are ‘not mere individuals in religion’ (29) and must obey ‘Christ’s law’ before the laws of the states in which they reside. (30)

In other words: Sheen wants to have his cake (i.e. individualism when it suits him) and eat it too (i.e. collectivism when it suits him) rather than the more rational view trumpeted by National Socialism that we are individuals who submit ourselves to the state as part of a social contract without any intrinsic ‘human rights’ beyond the only one that can be said to exist in nature: the right to revolt.

Nor is Sheen alone in thinking this as von Bernardi railed against this kind of solipsistic thinking using the veneer of ‘superior morals’ in the early twentieth century. (31) After all – as Johnson points out – for the honest ‘conservative’ as well as the honest liberal ‘national race pride’ (i.e. National Socialism) is far more dangerous than communism or capitalism. (32)

The reason for this is simple in that National Socialism – in whatever form it takes and has often been used with a superficially Marxist veneer by sub-humans in Asia, Africa and Latin America – (33) ‘solidifies the nation and strengthens its moral fibre’ by not only recognizing the national struggle – rather than mere bartering – that characterizes every aspect of foreign policy but also that internal enemies of the nation must be neutralized in order to ensure that they cannot work against national interests.

Indeed as Sheen himself states (and as usual doesn’t apply the thought): ‘The balance and the equilibrium of the whole system is disturbed when an organ is divorced from its function in the whole organism, or divorced from its higher purpose.’ (34)

In order for the system to work effectively it has to remove the impediments to its function from the inside as well as the outside. This includes those who are not part of the nation – i.e. not of the same race – as the only way the state can connect with and represent the people it governs (i.e. true democracy) is when like governs like. Hence why you cannot put a lion in charge on a herd of gazelle or a gazelle in charge of a pride of lions and expect social harmony.

‘Conservatives’ and liberals alike usually begin screeching about ‘political repression’ and ‘dictatorship’ at this point – another indication if one were needed that they are essentially the same group – and fail to recognize that every state that has ever existed has done this.

Hence why we have entities like the FBI and the Secret Service in the United States, MI5 and Special Branch in the UK and so on. Yet all these so-called ‘conservatives’ and liberals with their ‘inviolable principles’ are not upset about them: why?

Because they do not target them and make them responsible for their words and deeds. 

For example when a ‘free market conservative’ stands up and advocates a ‘free trade agreement’ with China that will result in American men and women losing their jobs, American businesses being subject to dumping from China’s slave labour economy, a decrease in American tax revenues and so on.

Is said ‘free market conservative’ not the definition of a traitor to America?

The difference between them and say an Islamist is that the Islamist wants to destroy America to subject it to the rule of Islam where-as the ‘free market conservatives’ wants to destroy America so they can get rich quickly (and screw America).

There is little difference in reality as one uses force and the other ‘policy recommendations’.

Why would you arrest one and not the other?

You wouldn’t right?

I mean who wouldn’t want to see Elizabeth Warren in a court room, wearing a jump suit and on trial for her life?

Yet so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t want this.

Why?

Because they are liberals at heart who serve merely to provide the illusion of choice to the people.

After all when was the last time that so-called ‘conservatives’ actually did anything other than talk a big game?

The only political philosophy that understands this implicitly and took action accordingly is National Socialism as Burnham himself recognized. (35)

This is why Robert Duvall’s character in ‘The Judge’ is such an adroit characterization of what ‘conservatism’ is, because he – like every so-called ‘conservative’ from William Buckley Jr. to Charlie Kirk - fails to understand is that in order to make an omelette you have to break some eggs.

They don’t want to break eggs because to do so would mean that they’d have to recognize that their much loved romantic delusions of ‘individuality’ and ‘humanity’ are their version of the Emperor’s new clothes.

National Socialists on the other hand are not afraid to break as many eggs as is necessary to make a good omelette and that is why National Socialists are not of the right or of the left but rather work on different axes all together.

That is also why National Socialism - and only National Socialism - gets shit done.

Unlike Donald Trump.

 

                                  References

(1) Fulton Sheen, 1954, ‘Life Is Worth Living’, 2nd Edition, Ignatius Press: San Francisco, p. 182

(2) James Burnham, 1986, ‘Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism’, 2nd Edition, Regnery: Chicago, p. 44

(3) Ibid, p. 85

(4) Ibid, p. 206

(5) Ibid, p. 33

(6) Sheen, Op. Cit., p. pp. 277-278

(7) Ibid, p. 179

(8) Joseph de Maistre, 1847, [1814], ‘Essay on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions’, 1st Edition, Little and Brown: Boston, Preface

(9) Ibid.

(10) Sheen, Op. Cit., p. 181

(11) Burnham, ‘Suicide’, Op. Cit., pp. 59; 62-63

(12) Sheen, Op. Cit., p. 179

(13) Friedrich von Bernhardi, 1914, ‘Germany and the Next War’, 1st Edition, Edward Arnold: London, p. 23

(14) Ibid, p. 21

(15) Dom Lorenzo Scupoli, 2010, ‘The Spiritual Combat and A Treatise on Peace of Soul’, 1st Edition, Tan: Charlotte, p. 193

(16) Bernhardi, Op. Cit., pp. 18-19

(17) James Burnham, 1950, ‘The Coming Defeat of Communism’, 1st Edition, Jonathan Cape: London, pp. 42; 67; 71

(18) Hilaire Belloc, 1937, ‘The Crusade: The World’s Debate’, 1st Edition, Cassell: London, p. 3

(19) Fulton Sheen, 2004, [1939], ‘Victory Over Vice’, 1st Edition, Sophia Institute Press: Manchester, p. 90

(20) Fulton Sheen, 1949, ‘Peace of Soul’, 1st Edition, Ligouri: Missouri, p. 180

(21) Donald Johnson, 1948, ‘The Ends of Socialism: The Reflections of a Radical’, 2nd Edition, Christopher Johnson: London, p. 133; restated in different form by Burnham, ‘Coming Defeat’, Op. Cit., p. 78

(22) Sheen, ‘Peace of Soul’, Op. Cit., p. 10

(23) Johnson, Op. Cit., p. 164

(24) Maria Antonietta Macciocchi, 1973, ‘Letters from inside the Italian Communist Party to Louis Althusser’, 1st Edition, NLB: London, pp. 41; 46; 64

(25) Ibid, p. 10

(26) Revilo Oliver, 2006, ‘America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative’, 2nd Edition, Historical Review Press: Uckfield, p. 74

(27) Fulton Sheen, 2008, [1953], ‘Way to Happiness’, 1st Edition, Alba House: New York, p. 93

(28) Fulton Sheen, 2014, [1946], ‘Remade for Happiness: Achieving Life’s Purpose Through Spiritual Transformation’, 1st Edition, Ignatius Press: San Francisco, p. 33

(29) Ibid, p. 100

(30) Ibid, p. 107

(31) von Bernardi, Op. Cit., p. 25

(32) Johnson, Op. Cit., p. 148

(33) Roy Laird, Betty Laird, 1970, ‘Soviet Communism and Agrarian Revolution’, 1st Edition, Penguin: London, pp. 115-116

(34) Sheen, ‘Victory over Vice’, Op. Cit., p. 39

(35) Burnham, ‘Coming Defeat’, Op. Cit., p. 80

Of Sex, Sex Education and Society

Is the way society perceives sex today “healthy”? Or does it have negative results which if left unchanged, could cause harm to society? It is argued by many that the promotion of abstinence had detrimental effects, that it, leaving people ignorant of sex played a key role in unwanted pregnancies [1]. It is believed that sex education plays a crucial role in the development of responsibility [2]. And since the parents fail to teach their children about sex [2.1], (at least according to social psychologists) it graciously accepted the responsibility of doing so. Very well then, I believe its high time some one review the progress we made since society talked about sex more openly. And see what this has accomplished. We will firstly examine what it is Sex Education achieved , then look at Society to determine the results.

Sex Education.

Sex Education, as previously mentioned, claims to provide a means for children to understand the responsibility and consequences of sex. But how necessary is it for a child of five [3] to know about sex (even if it is claimed to be a mild form of education)? Very, they would have you believe, because children are curious about the nature and composition of the opposite sex. Hm, yes but where from is this curiosity borne? A desire to mate? Is it perhaps an indication that he or she is mature enough to make these decisions? I doubt anyone would say yes to either of these questions. So why then, does this natural curiosity prompt the justification for introducing sex-education?

It is they claim, shown to be, that introducing children to the subject at an early age, has positive effects on such things as teen pregnancy rates. In other words the entire system of sex-education is not built around abstinence but rather around teaching the youth in having sex. In a safe way, I am sure they would be eager to point out.

It is absurd to suggest such a thing, you may think, but when one reads that 1000 children under the age of 13 [4] are prescribed tablets to prevent pregnancies, you quickly come to the realization that the function of sex education is precisely that. Sex education teaches our youth to be sexually active in a safe way, and society with the blessing of Government nurtures this position. It nurtures a false sense of security, by calling the “preventative measures” during sex “safe”, which by its very meaning implies fool proof. This is leading children into committing acts that have consequences that are not fully within their means to handle. Naturally one would first ask what sort of parent would allow this sort of thing to happen. But these prescriptions are given with no requirement for parental permission at all, in fact, there is even no need for the parent to be aware of this. It in other words offers complete anonymity to the child.

It is said that the period of puberty provides a curiosity of a different nature. Because at that stage in life one develops the means to reproduce. True enough perhaps, but should wisdom not dictate that one should teach them to act responsibly? At the moment we're teaching the youth not in responsibility but rather irresponsibility. Since we teach them of sex in terms of options they have in doing so without responsibility. If the condom fails then you always have the option to abort, we even teach them how to allegedly “prevent” STD's of which none are (as previously stated) fool proof. These all encourage promiscuity rather than behavior that exhibits control which is the function of acting responsibly.

So, how then will we resolve this issue? What can be done to ensure that we return to a healthy well functioning society? How do we resolve the problem of teenage sex? Do we give power back to the parent? And trust that they would educate their children properly regarding this matter? It could be and is often argued that many fail to educate their children in sex at all [See earlier reference]. But even so, should we leave the parent to be irresponsible and educate their children on this matter in their stead? Or should we perhaps look toward creating a society of responsible parents instead? Parents not only have a responsibility to themselves, but to their children and the community as well, just as the community has a responsibility to each and every member therein. We should do more to make more enlightened and responsible parents, rather than to accept that there are irresponsible ones and we'll just have to carry their weight for them. Even so, there is no sure way even if we make it mandatory for parents to attend classes, that they would fulfill their obligations to their children. However, to do so would unquestionably improve the amount of parents who do since it would make it easier for them to approach the subject, furthermore, to better understand how to instill responsibility in their children's character. Lastly we must put an end to educating the youth on having sex, and opt instead on teaching about sex and the need for abstinence.

There are those who'd say : “kids will find ways to have sex, you can't stop them” kids want to find ways primarily because of pressure groups, it is today considered an insult to be a virgin and people often mock others for being one. It is human nature to want to fit in. Even we adults have that compulsion from time to time. If we are to change the stigma, more will aspire to be better. We will continue discussing this matter later on when we deal with the issue of society. I will restate however: Just because a problem cannot be resolved to a 100% certainty, doesn't mean we have to accept that some are flawed, therefore we must encourage all to be so, as long as they are safe and reduce the risks attached to their actions.

The code society functions under is one of pleasure and in pursuing that but this is not conduct that is positive for society and it will never be, because society by its nature, requires responsibility in order for it to continue to exist. And as we will see, there exists no such thing in society today.

Society.

Since the morality of self indulgence entered the foreground, society increasingly perceived of sexual relations as something to be pursued for the sake of pleasure. But this is not all, women we are told, have been made to feel shame for her body in the past. So she now, through the lies of the foreign elements within society “empowers” herself by means of loose behavior. The spring break events being indicative there of, among many other forms of behavioral patterns that developed. Today one often hears the phrase “one night stand” and often sexual acts are entered into by the first week What a stark contrast to the past, when man had to court the female, he had to prove himself worthy for her hand in marriage. Today on the other hand we see a complete transformation. These views (a foreign moral code) which the foreign element (Jews) implanted into the mind of our female folk, do not exist to free them from the so-called “oppression” of their male counterparts, they exist solely to cheapen them, and make them feel unworthy of more than being used. I'm sure that by now some one would think to themselves that its unfair for me to have such a bias view of the matter by solely “targeting” the female behavior in society today. I assure you it's not the case, it is not my desire to target our women folk, but to demonstrate how much more they are worthy of, beginning with being respected as had been done in the past not perceived as mere sexual objects. The manner in which we of the West perceived of relationships, was not in order to make a female feel shame, it was an indication of mutual respect and worthiness. Shame was reserved only for those who exhibited a behavior that is equal to what we see today. And as far as my views on men are concerned, I'm well aware of man's role in this society, as I am well aware of his childlike nature this day. Man no longer desires to be a man, he desires to remain a drunken party boy. The very idea of commitment threatens him as though his life was truly in danger. Marriage is perceived as a “finality”, the proverbial nail in the coffin of his childish gallivanting. I'm also aware that man also perceives of having multiple partners as a “right of passage”. These all, also idea's planted into the folks mind by the same foreign elements within our society. We see this in their propaganda (what they call movies) as well, the man is always conflicted about the idea of marriage, there is always a suggestion that it ends his life, and the female is always encouraged to “experience more men” because she couldn't possibly know that she had found the right man for her. This aside, does it make sense to say that...because man perceives of sex in this way, it is dictated that woman should do the same? After all that'd surely change the stigma right? I never understood this special breed of stupidity. No sooner do they demand the right to say no than do they throw it out of the window entirely! Man won't be “stud” if woman says no!. But instead of women demanding more of man, we see today women bragging in the media of having had five thousand sexual partners [5] and for no reason other than self gratification. It's alright though because “men are called stud's if they do so”, it simply will not change the stigma at all. It merely confirms that society has a backward way of perceiving things. Some even sell their virginity (which in itself is a rarity these days) for the sake of paying off debt [6]. When man offers her a way out to not lose dignity she refuses stating that she wants no knight in shining armor. Treating her male counterpart as a common enemy, some one that tries to deny her, her unique form of “empowerment”.

Of course some would argue that society has always had prostitution, nudity etc as a response to most of what I said. We must ask ourselves whether this doesn't say more negative things of society, that we consider this an issue that shouldn't be addressed as much as possible. It is true that some prostitute mainly for the money, while others do so because Government failed them. It is also true that there are many ways prostitution could be kept alive. But the manner it is handled is not effective enough to discourage this behavior, stricter means must be employed. Harsher penalties not only to the female but to the customer as well, as he is the one that rewards this behavior. “As long as there are people willing to pay there will be prostitutes”. This is a statement one often comes across and it is indeed the case, but as long as there are harsh penalties for behavior that is destructive to the community, the less people would be willing to take the risk. Of course, I am not suggesting public hangings, but rather harsher fines, prison terms and the utilization of community pressure. The latter should do enough to dissuade most. What is meant by community pressure? Shaming them, when one looks at the Amish and also the Mormon one sees the effectiveness shaming troublemakers has. No one likes being ostracized this much is true. We've also seen this method's effectiveness during the so-called civil rights movement in the sixties. Labels were used to mock and deride the racially aware of the folk in the United States. They were called backward, ignorant, trailer park trash, people with a narrow world view and we continue to see this method employed daily even today. How often have I not heard these very words used to describe me, and how many times have people told their friends to not approach me, or to not speak to me. They do this because it is the very method that worked to turn their opinions from a racially healthy view to self hating. And it works, so long as people have the desire to not be alone, it truly works, having the approval of others is every average persons desire.

Of course, having said this we come once again onto the subject of free will. As is to be expected in this day and age; “Who are you”...they would say...”to force people to do what is against their will? Or even “people have free will to decide what to use their money on” But one is always subject to the will of the community as well as that of the Government. Allow me to take you back to 1957 so I may better illustrate my point. When the racial integration scheme hit a snag in a few of the Southern States. The USA which up to that point and to this day prides itself on its “free will” decided to send its troops to enforce its desires at gunpoint.[7] The now famously known “Little Rock 9” being an example there of another would be the incident in September of 1962, when White students refused to accept James Meredith on their campus, then Attorney General Robert Kennedy dispatched 400 US Marshalls, and after it turned violent, then President John. F. Kennedy dispatched 3000 troops to quell the White man's resistance to integration [7.1]. Is the desire to associate and live among your own, not an act of free will denied by your system? Does your egalitarian system not oppress, discriminate and shame individuals who are racially aware? Do you not punish those who have a view that threatens the very foundations of your multiracial society, by denying them equal right to be published and marketed? Instead these people have to self publish their work, which of course gives the illusion of freedom of speech, but in reality it puts a firm muzzle on many individuals who can ill afford to do so out of their own pockets. No, we would not be doing anything untoward if we are to suggest that people who exhibit behavior that is undesirable, should be shamed and ostracized. Its benefits would be felt all the way through society, from the teenager to the adult. As reference [5] demonstrates, the lady in question felt shame for not having had sexual relations during her early teenage years, students and friends mocked her, pressure groups are the main cause for behavioral tendencies, and should this turn, less would be so willing to give themselves so cheaply.



Notes:

[1] See: ,2007, “Sex Abstinence Programs Have No Impact On Preventing Unwanted Pregnancies Or Stopping Risky Sexual Behavior”. Medical News Today, 3rd of August 2007. [Online] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/78751.php accessed: 30th August 2010.

[2] “Sex Education”, Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, Date last modified: 29th August 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education accessed : 30th August 2010.

[2.1] Rosemary Bennett, 2008, “Parental Failure to Confront The Problem Is To Blame For Abortion Statistics”, Times Online UK, 19th of June 2008, [Online] available at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4171322.ece date accessed: 30th August 2010.

[3] See: Graeme Paton, 2008, “Children Aged Five To Get Sex Education”, The Telegraph, 22nd October 2008, [Online] available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/3242919/Children-aged-five-to-get-sex-education.html date accessed : 30th August 2010

[4] Hilary White, 2010, “1000 UK Girls Under Age 12 Prescribed Hormonal Contraceptives Last Year”, Life Site News, 3rd August 2010, [Online] available at : http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10080303.html date accessed: 30th August 2010.

[5] Tiffany Wright, 2009, “I've Slept With 900 Men – So What?”, News Of The World Magazine, 25th October 2009, [Online] Available at: http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/fabulous/features/561491/sex-addiction.html date accessed: 30th August 2010. Also see

Daily Mail Reporter, 2010, “I've Had Sex With 5,000 Men in 9 Years”, Daily Mail News, 13th August 2010, [Online] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302744/Ive-sex-5-000-men-years-boasts-beauty-therapist-25.html date accessed: 30th August 2010.

[6] Carol Driver, 2010, “18 Year Old Auctions Virginity For 200K To British Bidder”, 6th August 2010, [Online] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300843/18-year-old-auctions-virginity-200k-pay-family-debts.html date accessed: 30th August 2010.

[7] “Little Rock Nine”, Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, Date Last Modified 25th August 2010, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine date accessed: 30th August 2010.

[7.1] “John F. Kennedy – Civil Rights”, Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, Date Last Modified 27 August 2010, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Civil_rights date accessed: 30th August 2010.

Supremacism And Its Relation To Man

Whenever there is talk of race, the need to preserve it or for that matter the desire to be part of an organic homogeneous community. One often finds in close company the accusation of being a supremacist. The popular tactic these days, when being confronted with this accusation, is to outright deny any hint of a desire for supremacy. Both the accusation and the denial is an absurdity, because both of these consider supremacy to be an inherent evil or something that is against nature. I suppose one cannot fault them for doing so, especially when they play by the rules of the belief the accuser has of the word. It is believed by the Egalitarian, that supremacism is an “evil belief” that one is superior to another race, religion and what have you, and not, that it is actually a natural predisposition. It may be true that they do not perceive themselves as superior in this context. But it is not borne from a rational position, or a clear understanding of the world and the manner in which it operates. For even if they do not perceive themselves as supreme, they all work inextricably toward being supreme.

It is with this view in mind that I've decided to write a small piece on supremacism, and its place in human nature.

On Supremacism And Its Relation To Man.

Supremacy is the end goal of all manner of organic life, each and every organism strives to attain this goal.. Each one adapts, not just for the purpose of survival but for the function of being supreme over that which previously endangered its existence. One could even say that survival implies the attainment of supremacy over that which threatened its existence. The process of self perfecting will always lead to the result of the one being supreme over the other, even if just momentarily. We see this example with numerous virus': the moment man had found a solution to this problem, it gradually adapted itself into a new strain, ensuring its chances of survival against this solution, thus making it supreme above the solution itself.

So considering this, whenever accused of being a supremacist, one must always affirm that they are, for it is natures law that they should be. We see ample examples of what failure to adhere to this principle does. Civilizations, which are in themselves designed by organic lifeforms for the purpose of fulfilling this goal, have both risen and fallen. The minute they ceased to have any interest in supremacy they stagnated, withered and died. For it is a constant truth throughout history that each civilization was forged out of the need to survive, whether to defend or to obtain land, it all had the desire to be supreme above those that endanger them, and those who stand in the way of materials necessary for their survival. One such example being the British Empire, which grew out of its industrialization and subsequent collapse in agricultural land mass. It is not just the need for land that pushed the English into colonialism. It was also a desire to be supreme, to enforce its will wherever it desired, often at the cost of others. It was the same for Rome, as it was for Egypt, and many other Empires that had existed in the past. Each one perceived himself supreme in relation to its enemies, each one concerned itself only with its will and not that of others. We today perceive this past (colonialism) to be an “evil” but as I already mentioned before in my article; “on the issues of Abortion” [1] nature has no capacity for evil, it only has a capacity for what is right. And the need to survive necessitates doing what is necessary. This much is true of all organisms: when it comes to the point where survival necessitates certain adaptations, there are none, upon being aware of their own survival being at stake, who would hesitate to put them to use.

There are may today who love to delude themselves into thinking that we can give up this desire for supremacy. But this is borne, rather from emotion, which bears no merit on the rule of life. It is necessary though, to address some of these issues so it may be better illuminated:

There is frequent talk among egalitarian minds, that “co-operation” between the different sub-species is a far more desirable option than that of supremacy and struggle. This however, is just wishful thinking, because even today when we not only “co-operate” but endanger our own existence at the benefit of others, we come to find that life is filled with discriminatory practices, as well as the desire for supremacy. For instance we find that governments do discriminate in the sharing of information or technology that invariably equates to power. There exists no nation on earth who would share armaments among other nations on an equal footing, because doing so would immediately remove their superiority over what may be a potential enemy in the future. What is exported or traded with foreign nations is only that which would ensure that the stronger maintain its position of strength. We also come to find that the importing and exporting of goods other than weaponry contains within itself a struggle for power and superiority over others. It certainly is often argued that this co-operation in terms of imports and exports of goods, is done for mutual benefit. But this is not the case - trading by its nature is an act which expresses supremacy over another, there is no fair trade, since there is competition among both the buyer and seller, regarding the pricing of these goods. One will always try to extract the maximum out of it while the other tries to pay as little as is possible. Each one viewing his product as better to the one offered in exchange. What effects the outcome, is power in the form of demand, there is nothing fair about it. One will always leave having given out more than was actually necessary, one will always have the power over the other. Outsourcing and Globalism I am sure, will be perceived as indications that it is shifting toward mutual benefit, but is this really the case? Can there be a strain of this inherent superiority found within this modern method?

Outsourcing they say, provides jobs in underdeveloped regions, thus creating a viable economy within these nations, uplifting everyone gradually toward a common economic stability. This however, is another false claim. Since outsourcing by its nature is the exploitation of cheaper regions, to maximize profits, it not only does nothing in terms of economic development in the undeveloped regions, but it does equal damage to the nation it abandons, since it is causing severe unemployment in an already existing market, losing itself its only loyal and secure market base. Furthermore the education, financial injections and support from G8 nations toward Africa is not done for the sake of mutual benefit, but because of a desire on the part of the ruling nations, to reinvigorate its former colonies into a viable export for produce, which it previously had under its control, but can no longer obtain through means of trade, it cannot obtain it by means of trade, because the African hasn't mastered agriculture. At the moment the relationship is not even reciprocal since Africa is a beggar, and offers nothing even remotely close to mutually beneficial. Ah but I am sure, there are some who'd say, that it is in fact for mutual benefit because the African would have what it didn't have before: - a constant supply of food, which is beneficial to them as well. If only life were so simple, we seem to forget that we all feel that those we aid are in debt to us when they've found their feet. Not only will the G8 nations obtain its produce it lost through the end of colonialism, but it would gain a market for its industrial products, and furthermore, Africa would be in a position to repay the debt it incurred through decades of begging, exercising its power completely. And should we as we have done in the past, write these debts off, then it is not beneficial to us, as we've lost billions in investments with no return on the capital.

There is also another ugly aspect to “trade” which most people tend to forget: It is often used as a weapon to enforce the will of the Democratic West upon others. As it is currently done in Zimbabwe, and as it has been done in the past against Apartheid South Africa and many other nations both past and present. So there is an element of constant power in it. And this perhaps is an idea to consider in and of itself. That Ideologies themselves have the desire for supremacy, and use whatever is at its disposal to enforce its will upon others. But it is not something I wish to elaborate on here, as it will, detract from this particular essay, which deals with supremacy in a different context.

That aside, we must explore the “Globalism” aspect of the claim to mutual benefit. It is true that the current establishment desires to create an international “one world” that it calls Globalism, and it uses the notion that all people of all walks of life will be “brought together” as though this is a longed for occurrence. But life shows that this can never be, it is inevitable that different races will ultimately seek to obtain the advantage over others. In Multiracial society today we see the ample indications there of. In European nations, the Arab, Jew, Negro among many others, all see to their own interests, each one has a group that represents their interests and theirs alone, not the interest of some “higher purpose” or some “higher goal”. “But they stand against racism which is a factor that divides humanity”....That they stand against “racism” is no indication of their desire to “breach the gap between the different peoples” as is commonly believed, but is more an indication of their desire to maintain their survival, and the positions they obtained through anti-racial laws. Which serves to curtail and shackle only European man.

If they truly were against racism, would they not stand against all forms of it? And not as they do today, only target the European and label him a racist, whenever he desires to see to his own interests? It is a means to defend themselves and maintain the status quo, that is: working toward the displacement of the European and the empowering of their own kind, and not as is popularly believed, an actual indication of their desire to do away with racism. Displacement? You may wonder, “how precisely are they working toward the displacement of the European”? Affirmative Action is a policy not designed to “right previous wrongs”, or to “do justice to those whom injustice was done to” as is commonly believed, it is a policy that place all manner of non-White on the top of the preference list for occupation, to work, which is the means with which to secure ones existence and to provide for one's family. It is a policy that shifts the balance of power gradually away from the European, nullifying his influence in society.

Co-operation can only truly exist among those who share the same hereditary traits, because it is mutually beneficial to do so, and not those who compete against you so that they may increase the reproductivity of their own. In other words, true co-operation can only exist between the Europeans, for they all share the same hereditary traits, they are not in competition with one another to perpetuate their own racial hereditary traits. The same cannot be said for the non-European.

All manner of life is a battle for supremacy, to either get to the top or to maintain that position. This is the way the world functions, and while we may live in a world where humanity today denies any notion of “color” or of “race” the reality of the matter, as is demonstrated, is vastly different. The only one foolish enough to adhere to “tolerance” and forsake the natural strive for supremacy is the European, and it is costing him his very existence.

[1] See my article on Abortion : http://nationalsocialistletters.blogspot.com/2010/08/issues-of-abortion.html

The Issues of Abortion

The matter of abortion has always been a topic of contention. Throughout the ages it has been brought up – accepted – and then rejected. Each period brought about a resurgence of either one or the other sphere of thought, it was either deemed to be a Godless act or a divine right of women to “do as they please with their bodies”. In the past there was a constant fixture in this debate, and that is religion. This was to say, it was primarily a question addressed by means of theological disputation. However, it is now the subject of philosophy. That's not to say that it never had an element of philosophical contemplation to it, that of course it had, at least in so far as discussions around the subject always considered it either a good or a bad action as well as its moral (and theological) implications, but the modern era reached a certain ethic behind the concept of abortion which is in itself a unique thing. Furthermore since the advance of science and the subsequent insignificance of religion, science itself now plays a role in the question of Abortion. At least as far as trying to justify abortion by means of science is concerned.

It was argued by the theologians of the past that such an act is an affront to God, that taking what was deemed a gift from divine Providence amounted to a sin, a sin which man cannot allow himself to partake in. That each life first conceived is endowed with a soul, and that the termination of this soul is an act against the wishes of the Higher power. Now granted, it isn't what one would today consider a reasonable defense for denying a certain action, considering how our knowledge evolved throughout the years, and the failure of the Church to in turn adapt to the arguments presented against them. But it was effective at least, in ensuring that the continuation of the folk, remained in tact and as nature dictates. For those who do not procreate, or fail to provide an ample quantity of future generations to increase positive adaptability, cease to live at all, they become extinct, mere remnants of the past, examples of failures.

In contrast to Pro-Life arguments which today is (or rather is believed to be) soundly refuted by science. It is believed among certain philosophical circles that a fetus “is not yet a person/human being and as such they do not yet have a substantial right to life” [1] On the face of it, this might seem reasonable, but the absurdity of this statement becomes ever more apparent when we dissect it and ask of it some pressing questions. At what point do we consider something to have a substantial right to life? The period described by science as the term where a fetus can be considered as “not having a right to life”, isn't one born from fact but is rather a subjective value judgment born from the common belief that we must accommodate our world view with that of the wish and desires of the current establishment and not, as is usually the case, shape it in accordance with what is positive. It is admitted, that the fetus is indeed a life, and that it does indeed have a genetic system [2] but this according to the subjective analysis of the pro-choicers, doesn't suffice as a reasonable enough argument for constituting it a human being. What is neglected and I suspect deliberately so, is the fact that a present genetic system in and of itself, does in fact make it a human being. What is defined as an individual in biological terms, is unique genes, because what its genetic system is composed of, is those same genes you and I contain in our human body. The period up to its birth is a process of gene selection from an already present human genetic pool. To state that its not a human being because, at that point in time its selection process did not create X amount of limbs or what have you, isn't a reasonable argument to make. For then any human being with a genetic defect is not a human being on the basis that its gene selection process was disturbed and resulted in an error or an omission. For that matter to argue (as they do) that it is not a human being on the basis that its not separate and independent of its mother, is simply not a reasonable argument to make either. Would it be reasonable for us to suggest that once a man loses his independence whether through war injuries or other misfortunes, that we abort him from society for not having that said independence he previously had? Of course, people would be upset at such a suggestion, one could already imagine the cries of condemnation you'll receive for even thinking such a thing. And yet it is dependence that is the determining factor for aborting a life not considered human because of its dependency on others. Are we not all to some extent dependent on others? What sort of imbecilic criteria is this? Who in their right mind would use this as a basis on which to determine life or death? And who, for that matter, would even find this suggestion agreeable?

Ah yes! But feeling!, now there is a popular and frequently used justification for terminating a life, it doesn't feel anything, they say...therefore its not doing actual harm to the fetus, this is of course if we neglect the fact that it is the termination of a life form containing all the genetic composition of a human being and thus doing harm not only to it, by ending its life, but also to the folk. The subjective nature of this statement becomes even more apparent if one takes this argument further to suggest that one could for the same matter then simply shoot a paralyzed individual. No! They would emphatically exclaim, I'm certain, at the mere mention of such a thing, what then makes this so different? Why does the one provoke public indignation while the other doesn't? I am sure there are some who would argue that one lived a life but for the same token we could say that another is denied a chance at resuming life! And for that matter, everything lives a life up to the point it dies, even a fetus lived a life up to the point of its abortion, its an absurdity to argue in these terms, or to apply such an infantile explanation to such a serious issue. Clearly the claim to have “lived” a life isn't an appropriate justification for denying one the chance at resuming its life coming into this world, and becoming a contributor to the folk and fulfilling its part in nature. For that is ultimately what birthing and procreation is intended for, to ensure the survival and continuation of the folk.

Of course we run into a wild fool every now and then who claims as our friend [3] does that : “ it is necessary for the health and survival of the individual, the families and society” that we should allow abortion. Imagine that, what a fine reason to do so isn't it? Not only is abortion done without the individuals life being in danger, contrary to what is suggested there, but it goes completely against the survival of society! Procreation, as already stated, exists to ensure the survival of the organic community, and not as our friend claims, to endanger it. Yes of course we could at this point expect the popular claim that the world is over populated. Which is a popular statement to make during discussions of this nature. It is simply another asinine claim made by the hysterical quacks just itching to get their names etched into history. It's not the world that's over populated, China and India may be, but they don't even begin to make up the vast landmass that is known as earth. Even so, should we consider this a serious statement, there is nothing that prevents man from adapting. Already we have the means with which to do so. In Japan for instance, we see the Asian building upwards to make land available, we see science manipulating and engineering foods. Western man is no exception. We Europeans have the means with which to adapt. Not that we would be pressed to do so anytime soon, considering our spectacularly low birth-rate. But enough about this subject. We must press on and continue our exploration into the question of Abortion.

If, as we have done here, we find these gospels of pro-choice to be lacking, we arrive at the last method of enforcing sympathy for the sake of executing life:

Pro-Choicers claim that “ it is impossible to give equal moral rights to fetuses without denying those same rights to women [4]. While this at first glance may appear to be true, we quickly realise that this statement again, implies that the woman's life is in danger in all cases. I.E. That throughout the first trimester all women who abort do so because their lives are in danger. Since the only right we speak of is the right to life. It's absurd to suggest that this would put the woman's life in jeopardy. Unless of course the “life” spoken of in reference to the woman, isn't the same as that which we speak of in reference to the fetus. But that her “life” being in danger is in fact the selfish belief that a child “ruins lives” and that she will be “enslaved” and “chained down” by this infant. That she...would no longer be able to do as she pleases, but would have responsibilities of her own. Its not far fetched to consider this selfish perspective as the motive for continuously referring to the endangerment of the female's “life”, it is often a popular claim to make in this day and age.[5] That this absurdity is even considered a legitimate argument boggles the mind, and more so demonstrates how poorly society treats this subject matter. Its quite obvious that her life is not over. That society frowns upon pregnancy is not an indication that its a sickness, or an undesired condition, but that society itself is sick and in an undesirable state. There is also one other angle we have to consider and address, and that is the popular appeal to emotion, as it is often the last resort in justifying the murder of ones own:

What if...they ask...”the child is not wanted by the mother? You would subject an innocent child to a life where he is not wanted and is abused?” Not in the least, there are people who can't conceive out of their own, who'd love the opportunity to raise a member of the folk. And should the mother so decide to act a child and flee from her responsibilities. Then it becomes the concern of the State. Who will then take on this responsibility. If for no other reason, than because the child is a member of the organic community, and as such, is a vital part of the survival of this community. It (the State) is bound by the natural instinct to survive, to ensure its safety and well-being. Since the State serves the role of co-ordinating society in a way that will ensure survival and continuance into the future. Naturally we must consider the possibility that the woman was taken against her wishes. But even so, does it justify an abortion? If in a society that takes a pro-life stance, we consider that such cases are exempt from this view, we will undoubtedly have numerous cases where false reports are made in an attempt to do away with the child. Should we decide to make this an exempt case, it will require a far more rigorous investigation, so as to prevent an outright and shameless abuse of the law.

Of course (and this is to move away from our original question) at this point, one could ask “why not just let women have the right to abort if you know they're going to endanger themselves?” and the stories of the alleged “countless” women who put their own lives in danger doing back alley abortions before its legalization would pop up again, in an attempt to make it justifiable. Forgetting all the same that most women opted to give birth and accept responsibility for their actions, the amount of illegal dangerous abortions were minimal in comparison with the 49 million [6] abortions performed as of 1973 in the United States alone.


That aside, returning to our original question: I have spent some time deliberating on whether or not abortion, in the event of rape should be permissible. Should it be that it is not considered exempt from the law, it would perhaps still be the best course of action in certain circumstances. It may well make me appear hypocritical to say so. But the reasons for my stating thus are sound when looked at from the perspective of evolution. Should the fetus be the product of another race then it is mandated by the principle of evolution....that is...discrimination, to secure ones own survival and permitting an abortion. It may seem “evil” to some to state it so bluntly...but nature has no capacity for evil, only that which is right – to secure survival and grant your organic community (racial sub-species) the best advantage possible. Besides, it would be an ironic thing to behold, those who do so for selfish reasons, lecture me on the evils of arguing the very thing they use to get free from responsibility, as a justification for fulfilling natures rule. Can termination be justified in this instance where the perpetrator is in fact European? There were many factors to consider during this deliberation. The fact that the female did not consent to it, her emotional state, the emotional toll the pregnancy may have on her. All of these very reasonable considerations. But one must also consider the innocence of the life inside her. Whether or not it should be punished for the sins of its father. Also, should this be permitted, how many would claim to have been raped, in order to get an infant aborted? Which is of course, always a possibility. One could argue that stricter investigations should solve this problem of false claims. But for the same account one could argue that so would counseling in the proper sense, assist the female throughout her pregnancy. There are reasonable arguments to consider on all sides of the issue. And ideally we would want this to not be an issue at all. Its the responsibility of the state to do all that it can to make it as less of an occurrence as is humanly possible, however, some individuals even on pain of death cannot curtail this animalistic behavior. Unfortunately this scenario, is completely unavoidable.

However, keeping in mind these rare instances under harsher penalty (with the required proper investigation) We cannot find reason to suggest that we ought to set a standard that would in the future, provide an argument in favor of the same indiscriminate exterminations we have seen today. It cannot be considered permissible to continue as we are today or to set grounds that could lead us back to that point, and set our birth rates to a point where it is below that of our death rate (as it is today) ipso facto, endangering the very existence of our folk . And with these considerations all kept in mind, what we can do, is to attempt as best we can, to first and foremost try and save this life, by providing proper counseling and proper support for these few women, who we failed to protect. If, however, she is weak of will and fragile of constitution, we must make exemption, for to lose two lives in the process is not a rational nor a reasonable expectation.

The other special instance, would be in the case of severely malformed infants, there is nothing more cruel in this earth than to prolong and inflict more pain on these people, all for the sake of mere curiosity and some parents even allow this birth for the sake of their own vanity!. Of the countless times, I paged through magazines and found one or other couple, enjoying the publicity they get, and the admiration from others for their “hard life” in rearing these poor souls who's sufferings cannot so much as even be uttered. They fuel their vanity by calling these souls “happy”, “blissful” and what nonsense else, the pain they conceal within their mute bodies, not even remotely fathomable to these imbecilic parents. I am sure this provoked at least a frown to some, its a strange bit of contradiction in modern society, that when one aborts a healthy life it was a “choice” yet should you do so for the reasons stated above...you are a monster.

As far as choice is concerned, women often exclaim its my body its my choice. While one is an individual, one is only ever an individual part of a whole, that whole being the organic community And it is the responsibility of this organic communities Government to guide them into the pathway that evolution dictates: survival, expansion, supremacy. As this is the function of Government, not to turn against its own survival and endanger its peoples future as it has done in the past and is doing today. All for the sake of phantom choices! It is the heir who will take the struggle of the folk forward once more, to ensure survival of the racial community. As far as choices are concerned...one was made knowing full well of the result. All actions have outcomes, we cant terminate every perceived negative consequence in our lives, all simply because we do not like these outcomes or because we are conditioned to be as children, woefully crying at our lot as though some injustice was done to us. Every action will always have a reaction. Once we stop acting like children and accept this, we will no longer frown upon life as though it had given us a raw deal...or foolishly think that its conspiring against us.


Special thanks to Lawrence Good, for his contributions and patience during my assessment of this article.

[1] Warren, Mary Anne, Essay on Abortion, P. 303, The Blackwell Companion To Ethics, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1993.

[2] For instance see: “What Is an Abortion and Why Women Must Have the Right to Choose,” by A.S.K., Revolutionary Worker #1265, January 23, 2005.
[3] Warren, Mary Anne, Essay on Abortion, P. 304, The Blackwell Companion To Ethics, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1993.

[4] Ibid, P. 311.

[5] For instance see: Lionel, Shriver, 2005, “Why Ruin Your Life”, The Guardian, Friday 18th February, [Online], available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/18/gender.uk1, accessed: August 11th 2010.

[6] The National Right to Life, [Online], available at: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html, accessed: 11th August 2010.

Of Temporealisation and Tempocognition

As an individual that is primarily concerned with the issue of race and the apparent differences in Governing between the European and Negro races (irrespective of its alleged Democratic universality), I always strove to understand what precisely it is that caused these differences and in some cases clear inability to retain that which had been provided for by another race of people. I've always considered it a practical concern to attempt and understand what precisely the alteration may have been to make this such a fundamental gap, a gap; which to this day cannot be bridged, either by education, or by environmental change. There are many issues raised on this matter, in an attempt to reach an understanding of these quite apparent differences in ability. IQ and Brain size being one such example. Environment and its influence another: I.E. the need for continued advancement to combat the colder climates gave the European the upper hand over the African who enjoyed a tropical climate. The problem with these explanations is that they all have a sort of dual purpose or function to them, as it is always the concern of those of the liberal persuasion to use precisely these arguments in defense of their positions on society.

The Negro for instance, the Liberal would have you believe, has a lower IQ because education had been denied him I.E. that it is directly proportional to knowledge. Or the socio-environment wherein he lives is one that is not cohesive enough to support continued education. That the Negro is in essence completely equal to the European and the only thing that prevented a civilization on par with that of Europe was that socio-environmental factor so frequently abused. Neither explanation therefore, provide any definitive solution when it comes to understanding these differences in development. But what if there was a third option to consider? an option that might account for the above as well? What option? you may ask yourselves at this point. Well, quite simply put: it is Temporealisation and Tempocognition. I have mentioned these two points previously in my review of Jean Jacques Rousseau's “The Origin of Inequality”. But didn't endeavor to explain them in full, the reason for this is because it is an idea that is too expansive for a review on a booklet of such a small size. And it is also one that deserves attention of its own. I stumbled onto “Temporealisation and Tempocognition” after having read "Now Men and Tomorrow Men" by Dr. G.M. Mes. And I had an epiphany of some sorts, after reading this highly recommended book, all the pieces came together and explained in unison what it is that is the central cause of this substantial difference. It is of course demanded that I explain these two concepts of “Temporealisation and Temporecognition”, but I wont be so prudent as to steal the limelight on an idea that is not my own, I will explain these to you in the words of Dr. Mes and provide a brief explanation as to what they entail:

"I take Temporealisation to mean the quality of the awareness of location in time - or- the inclusion of time in the conception that a living thing has of its world". [1]

In other words: Temporealisation relates to the depth an organism is aware of itself and its location in time, either past, present or future. Having all three of these, being of course the more desirable and more complex of the organisms that exists. Different creatures have a different sense of time, this sense of time is not equally developed among all, which everyone would naturally agree to, if you are to suggest that the way he perceives the present and utilizes it for the purpose of the future, is not equal to that of a Lion or a Deer.... the more we go back in the chain of evolution the more we realise that lesser creatures...in so far as they are compared to us...have a sense only of the present (in other words immediate survival) and in rare circumstances have a small sense of the past (able to retain a certain amount of information acquired for survival), and naturally the higher we go the more developed this awareness becomes. Until finally it reaches man and where we simply refuse to even discuss the notion of inequality in any respect, or if we do, its in the most ridiculous fashion humanly possible, this of course to make it appear a trivial and insignificant part of life.

That aside, we must put into these terms the idea of tempocognition.

"Tempocognition is an ability allied to intelligence and, as such, largely genetically determined" [2]

Meaning in other words that Tempocognition is a cognitive ability and by being so it is a factor of intelligence. That is to say that: it is the analysis and application of knowledge for the future combined with the ability to make or build those future images into reality.

Now that we have explained these two concepts, we must examine how these two elements effected the evolution of man. Let us begin by the very point at which we recognize the rise of man:

The turning point for man had for a long time been considered as the day he decided to keep his weapon and put it to future use, rather than to throw it away.[3] This is in fact an indication of a developed future sense, albeit not an advanced one, but at that point man foresaw that he would have need of this weapon again. His future sense continued to develop through his experiences in the present, and, with the constant use of his weapon he foresaw future ways in which he could obtain superiority over his foe, using as little energy as possible and with more effectiveness than his current weapons permit. Thus he fashioned for himself different types of weapon for different functions (to defend himself with and to hunt with). These armaments were by no means perfect, and by using the same realisation and cognitive abilities he fashioned them from stones and from bones, firstly to give him better piercing and secondly to make it last longer. These new weapons required less frequent sharpening and provided a more ready usability. The process was repeated numerous times, over millions of years, continuously advancing the design of the bow and arrow, the spear and eventually the sword. And it was precisely this process of Temporealisation and Tempocognition that played such a crucial role in the development of Civilization. The Neolithic period ushered in a primitive concept of farming, I say primitive because irrigation, manuring and rotation of crops was not something early Neolithic man did, in fact the planting of crops was not even done on what one would consider a farm it was quite similar to that of the Bantu which continued to be at random. This however does not take away from the significance of the period when man used his Tempocognitive ability and realised that seed turns to plant, nor the temporealisation in the understanding that this could in fact be used to ensure a more steady source of food at a future time. And as with all things, the more man observed nature the more his understanding of it grew, and the more he absorbed the more methods he contrived for himself using his creative mind to extract the maximum from nature and even at times, against nature to maximize his survival. Solving the riddle that rain was not the only source that nourished plants he created irrigation, figuring out that manure made the soil fertile he made use of it to serve his goal, he set aside land for this very purpose...a land mass to be nurtured specifically to function as a source of permanent food.

We could set numerous examples that would indicate that at one point man realised the need of something, or that a certain thing fulfills a certain role, or for that matter that there is a problem that requires addressing and that he used his cognitive ability to solve it. But I think that I have used a prime example to demonstrate this very small detail so frequently overlooked. It may already be obvious where this article is heading, and what it is that I'm about to suggest, however, for those who don't quite yet know, I will non the less put the puzzles together.

There exists a popular belief in modern Western culture, that all Africa needs is an injection of funds, and the creation of educational systems to restore its nature to that of the Colonial period. This belief, is based on a poor understanding of the Bantu, of his history and the quality of his Temporealisation and Tempocognitive ability. People need to realise that Governments grow out of the people, they are a product of the people, they aren't separate from the people. Democracy is something that has not lasted in Africa for even as much as a quarter of a century, it has always reverted to a savage system of brutal Tyranny, concerned only with its leaders wants and needs, their natural form of Governing was very much the same, where the concern of their King was the only thing that mattered. This aside though, let us return to addressing this popular claim. As previously mentioned, the Bantu had no clear understanding of farming, he had up to the 1600's maintained only an understanding as far as early Neolithic man, his continent had the fortune of influence from various Civilizations all exceptionally advanced for their period. Egypt, the Middle East and Europe, and at no point throughout the thousands of years that had passed, did the Bantu retain the knowledge of any of these Civilizations. Instead he reverted back to that quality his temporealisation is capable of, to that range his tempocognitive ability could make use of. He saw no future use for writing, education that is the passing on of knowledge, of using the cognitive function to improve it...nor for any of the wondrous things provided, for his observation, during this long period. Just as he reverted back to a substandard life after Egyptian and Middle Eastern influence, so he reverted back to this self same substandard way of life after Europeans ceased to become an active part in their day to day life. In former Rhodesia the Negro man howled to give back his land, he kicked the European off the agricultural soil, and took it for himself, he failed to make any use of land which throughout European existence on it provided an abundance of agricultural foods. In South Africa, the land reformation process serves the same function, virtually all (if not all) of the land previously owned by Europeans and currently in the hands of black individuals, turned into barren wastelands, countless funds spent with no return on investment.[4] Ah but one must educate them!, the staunch egalitarian exclaims. And here is where we address the source of the socio-economic environment or “culture” that exists within the Negro that frowns upon education:

In order for education to be received, one must realise that there is a need for it, and as can be seen throughout Africa there simply isn't much emphasis placed on it, just as before there was no emphasis placed on its importance. Even in America they frown upon education and label their fellow blacks as “exhibiting behavior that is of a White tendency”. First one must perceive that a problem exists, then one must labour to fix it. As Mes aptly stated : “Solving the problem was not difficult, seeing it is”.[5] Even if we force education and make it compulsory by death would they fail to achieve anything, because there is no desire for it. And desire is one of the key requirements necessary in order to develop knowledge it is also a fundamental necessity in realising the value of something. Even if we are to assume that he retains grades, and attends school like those who “exhibit a behavior that is of a White tendency”... must we ask ourselves the question on whether or not the Negro man is in fact capable of making full use of the knowledge he is taught. Does he in fact have the means with which to take that knowledge and create something out of it? That is to apply it for the purpose of benefiting him in the long run (the future) or is it just a matter of mimicry? When a problem completely unrelated to his education (which will always serve as merely a guide to common problems and solutions in your area of expertise) occurs within the field of his expertise would he in fact place two and two together and solve the problem? In my experience it has never been the case, I have observed countless Negro individuals that have done a specific occupation for years on end, observing what is done by the European but never being fully able to innovate solutions to irregular problems. If told what to do they do it without problem, but do they actually understand what they are doing? Why it is necessary to do it? What could happen if its not done? That they fail to do these tasks without supervision, indicates the opposite to be the case. This is why despite having an exceptionally long period side by side with Europeans they aren't able to perform the rudimentary tasks required to maintain a civilization at the standard of the European.

Negro man is concerned mainly with the present the “Now” he has not the quality, scope or the intensity in Temporealisation and Tempocognition required for him to be equipped with a long future sense and more-so to make use of it in the present for the future. It may at first appear reasonable to suggest, that should they obtain enough experience they could in fact acquire a more developed sense, as European man had through his experiences with weaponry and agriculture, industrialization etc. But this is not the case, as had been demonstrated before: They were provided with ample opportunities to take note and through experience with others, adapt and apply the knowledge to serve this function, there must exist a biological propensity for this scope and quality. It is not the vast gap from the 14th century onto the present that creates this inability to make use of what had been learned by others through trial and error, for we see in the Asian the clear example that it must be biological. It took note of Europe's fast progress that left it in the dark, and more importantly, it realised its own need for it (seeing the problem) and why it is necessary.


Certainly one could point to this or that Negro, that managed to do something meaningful with his life, depending on ones subjective view of a “meaningful life”. But in the end this does not negate the trend, an exception to the rule does not in all instances make the rule flawed. There may be a Negro or two out there that would in fact contradict what it is I am saying, but the capacity for this type of ability is not commonly found among their people. While it is liked to believe that we all have the means to be a Gauss or a Leibniz, perhaps a Tesla, if we really put our minds to it...it remains merely a belief borne from hope rather than from knowledge. We are governed by our biological limits, we may dream of glory, fame and wealth, but if it is not within our biological capacity to obtain these, these dreams will always elude us. I am as can be seen, no proponent of equality, and I will not even venture to suggest that Europeans all have the same quality, scope and cognitive processes. But.... I will venture to say that if the same questions are posed to each European in their respective fields, they would in fact be able to understand what they do, why they need to do it, what could happen if its not done, and can in fact react to unforeseen circumstances by putting two and two together. Each one has a future sense, each one has a cognitive function what differs is its quality and its scope. Negro man, however, is simply a being concerned with the present and a future sense with at best only a few months.

[1] Dr. G.M. Mes, “Now Men And Tomorrow Men”, 1964. P 5

[2] Ibid. P.6

[3] Ibid. P18

[4] For instance see, Dr. Philop Du Toit, “The Great South African Land Scandal”, Legacy Publications, 2004.

[5] Dr. G.M. Mes, “Now Men And Tomorrow Men”, 1964. P 25

A review of Jean Jacques Rousseau's On The Origin of Inequality

As I read through Jean Jacques Rousseau's "On The Origins of Inequality", I came to realize just how much of the fundamental tenets of "equality" today, derive from this small booklet written by the French Philosopher in 1754. It is therefore with this in mind that I find it of pressing importance to address specific claims made by Rousseau and thereby individuals in modern society today.

Rousseau attempts an explanation of man in his natural state [1], and the state which he describes man in, is a condition that is void of all Government, of all civility and stripped of all signs of modernity...a cave man in other words. It is the contention of Rousseau therefore that institutions are the primary cause of inequality since it requires mankind to adapt in a way that is not natural to his predisposition. [2] This perspective on man and the origin of inequality, remains as can be seen, to this day a popular one. Countless times I've heard it claimed, that if two individuals of two entirely different races are born in the wild and left to fend for themselves void of education, civilization and other "luxuries" there would be absolutely no distinguishable difference between these individuals at all. That, they, would in fact be completely equal. The suggestion however, is a flawed one, one which we might be able to forgive Rousseau, but not modern man for accepting it as being an evident fact. What modern man conveniently forgets (and what Rousseau may not have known) is that man's natural state is never a constant, we are organic creatures and like any other organism we adapt and evolve with one single purpose in mind - survival. Thus to state that our "natural condition" is that of the caveman is an inaccurate estimation, institutionalizing and organizing ourselves into a community exponentially increased our ability to survive whatever may come our way. Of course even this is an imperfect method and it can in some cases even threaten the survival of the organism, that aside man has laboured throughout thousands of years, to find out the best way to Govern, that is to say to extract the absolute maximum from the community and thereby to ensure maximum survivability of the organism.

More astonishingly is the fact that Rousseau makes note of the fact that the Negro man in the Caribbean has no future sense at all[3], stating that he would sell his cotton in the morning then come back later crying for it back the afternoon, not having realized that he may have needed it later on. This Rousseau believes is man's natural predisposition, based on the notion that the negro man is closer to man's natural state than the European. The issue with this however, is that there is little consideration placed on the fact that different races have different temporealisation and tempocognition, that is to say that each one perceives things differently and in different time spans. If our natural predisposition is, as Rousseau contends, to have no sense of future needs and wants, then European man would never have foreseen the need for cultivating crops, or for storing large quantities of food, or for preparing proper housing for the winter. It could be argued that, the increase in population demanded that we create these sort of preparations, and that it was only as a result of this that man foresaw the need to store. However, this contention is flawed as well, it was through agriculture that our population expanded rapidly, and if not for a future sense, we'd have had no way of foreseeing the future starvation that would result from a lack of proper preparation. It is not "civility" the arts or "education" which created this future insight, but the manner in which European man's mind biologically functions.

In support of the contention that any perceived natural differences are merely institutional, Rousseau cites an example as evidence [4] It is his contention that, if man is to forsake all inclinations and behave in a sheepish manner (to do precisely alike with no variation) man would immediately be far more equal than he is in a society. But this in itself suggest a contradiction of his previous assertions, because it would indicate that man would have to actively force himself to forsake such things as communication, behavioral differences, likes and dislikes, and behave in precisely the same manner as all others. Thus making this an unnatural condition, and not a natural state. That which is natural comes without force, and is a logical sequence of adaptations that lead inextricably toward a single harmonious goal.

As can be seen from this brief review, there is a lot of Rousseau's beliefs that still remains pretty common in modern society. It is commonly believed by people, that institutionalizing is the cause of the inequality between European and Negro, that it is "Socio-Environmental" factors that create this rift between the success of one and the failures of another, the argument remains to this day that, when placed in exactly the same environment, both will have equal success and thrive equally. And as I've shown this is a flawed manner of thought. It is man that creates his environment not the environment that creates man, and it is precisely because of the biological differences between them that this rift exists. Whether you build up one area or not, the end result will remain the same, one due to a lack of future sense, would see no need for improvement and only concern himself with issues that relate to the present, the other will always seek to advance, always finding a need for it. I am certain that there are those who would argue that it would be the case, because the one group lacks the proper education that the other one has, however, consider why this is the case? It is not as though they have been denied this opportunity. "Yes, but they have a culture that attacks education" indeed! why's that? Perhaps because they see no need for this? Different races - different values. Not even compelled education at Harvard would create a "socio-environment" that is equal to that of European man.

[1] Rousseau, Jean Jacques, Discourse on The Origin of Inequality, Dover Publications Inc, 2004 P. 4 - 6
[2] Ibid. P. 24 - 25
[3] Ibid. P. 7 - 12
[4] Ibid P. 24 - 25

A Critique of Linder's Libertarianism

INTRODUCTION

The following article will examine several claims Alex Linder had made in favor of Libertarianism, the key points Linder mentions is Government, Freedom and Education. It is these topics I will examine in order to determine whether or not they hold any value at all. I will also examine a few key criticisms raised by Linder as well as some of his libertarian supporters, regarding the nature of National Socialism.

GOVERNMENT

The form of government proposed by Linder is rather simplistic, in so far as he contends that in a homogeneous European society, there would be no need for government, which he believes "Is incompetent of doing anything well"[1], that it is inefficient. While he certainly has a point that governments today aren't efficient and even hostile towards their own people. He misconstrues this as meaning that because government is dismal today. Any system that offers a government in the future would be equally dismal. To support this position further: he argues that, despite it acting incompetently, it still taxes business and the worker an excessive amount of money, which it then puts to poor use. To counter this, Linder formulated the following solution:

Instead of paying taxes to government and being subject to "economic tyranny" by means of legislation and regulation, it should rather cease to exist entirely, and business would run the process of organizing a society through privatization in its stead. [2] This poses numerous problems in and of itself.

For one: with no government in place, there is nothing to guarantee that business would not in fact monopolize public services and ask fees that are exceeding the means of the average citizen. We already see this in action today, where business actively seeks to exploit profitable markets (that is the non rural regions of the nation) and cut services off from rural regions entirely, actively demanding more money for less services provided to the nation as a whole. Two prime examples being the post office and public transport. Where previously the postal services delivered mail to the folk at no cost, they (the folk) now under an increasingly privatized postal system, have to pay based on the amount of miles they are away from non rural regions. And on the other hand, where previously, public transport was available in rural regions (train stops, bus stops) under increasingly privatized public transport systems, this no longer exists, the person now has to pay for a taxi fare based on mileage in order to reach a non rural region where he can take a bus further to his desired location. All this, simply because it was deemed unfeasible to provide a service in regions deemed to be a non profitable market. This apparent exclusivity in non-rural regions set the stage for price fares that exceed the normal fare because it gave the illusion that it provides something unique to the folk in the non-rural regions. There is also little to guarantee that it would pay its workers proper and a fair wage. Business had for a long time and continues to support the immigration of non-Europeans so they may benefit from paying lesser wages for more profit, the benefit of, which is not even passed to the consumer: that is to say that the wealth is not distributed, but pocketed among a select few. With nothing to ensure that there are any checks in place ensuring that it abides to the spirit of "the Old America" as he so frequently refers to, there is every possibility that they may in fact monopolize the system, and that they may in fact create a master-slave caste within the United States. This discrepancy in wealth distribution coupled with the increase of cheap labor gives rise to an increase in poverty, among the European citizens of the country. This rise in poverty is ironically enough the cause of the origin of Marxism, as it is directly linked to Marx' argument that an increasing divide would occur among those who control the means of production and those who don't. This increasing divide between those who control the means of production and those who don't, inevitably give rise to revolt and unrest within the nation, the desire to redistribute the wealth among those who had been afflicted by this discrepancy gives rise and fertile ground for a Bolshevist revolution.

Alex Linder then continues his crusade against government (in favor of business) further, by claiming that government has in the past cost the lives of millions of people during times of war and tyranny and that business on the other hand, simply offering products and services have not [3]. What Linder forgets is that private business if allowed to do so...exert tyranny of its own upon the folk. While the employee may appear to be free to sell his labor, in reality he isn't. He is compelled by necessity to survive and fend for himself and his family, so while he may maintain a standard salary at which he is willing to offer his skills, if turned down enough he will eventually be forced to accept employment at less than his worth. No man will maintain a standard payment for his skills if he is constantly turned down due to alleged costs. Now granted, business should not be compelled to pay an obscene amount of money purely because it is requested in return for the skills provided that is why salary regulations need to be in place to ensure that a fixed minimum amount are to be paid to specific skill sets. This would ensure that both the individual and the business don't lose. This standard salary however, need to ensure that the individual is capable of living above poverty.

Furthermore, that Linder attempts to make his position seem more plausible and peaceful, by harping on about the fact that lives had been lost and that by replacing or removing this system entirely there would be "peace"...is nothing more than a Utopian dream. Business is equally capable of engaging in the same thing. It is a practice in modern business to commit to intelligence operations and counter intelligence operations against the competition. Both sides tend to commit espionage against the other. Oddly enough Linder, contradicts himself by stating that he does in fact support a military wing of society for the purposes of defending its ideals against racial enemies. [4] This despite his apparent abhorrence of the "blood shedding of the past". Surely if the market needs to rule, these military wings drafted for the purpose of defending the folk against racial enemies, would need to be privatized armies. Considering this, it must be asked who precisely will these privatized armies defend? Will it be the folk or will it be their paymasters? These mercenaries aren't likely to bite the hand that feeds them, so when push comes to shove and the people grow tired of the discrepancy in wealth distribution, and begin to demand what they feel they are entitled to, these mercenaries would not hesitate to suppress them. Obviously this is a tyranny that exceeds anything else that had been cooked up thus far.

Even if we are to assume that this libertarian society has a military wing that functions exclusively for the defense of the folk then it begs the question: Where will the funds come from that ensure that this military wing not only exists, but that it continues to advance its weaponry? Will business fork out the bills as a collective? If so: how can he guarantee us that this would not be used to the detriment of society as a whole? While it may be plausible in the fictional realm...i.e. that business would act ethically and honorable. The staunch reality of the matter is that it's far more likely that they would abuse this power to ensure that they do not lose their privileged position in society. As have been mentioned earlier, the moment that the employees decide to demand what they are entitled to, they would use this power to suppress them. That is to say that the state would immediately fall from libertarianism into Oligarchic-Tyranny. On the other hand, should Linder decide that there must be a government. However, strictly on the sidelines and purely for the purposes of ensuring the maintenance of the military, would the people be taxed in order to fund this scheme? If so: is it not a contradiction of his previous assessment that his system would "free people from economic tyranny through legislation, taxes and regulation"?[5]

How does Linder propose to hold this military wing in check with no centralized government? This is especially problematic when he contends that his proposed society is beneficial to those who work and save, and not to the military and welfare inclined "dregs" of society. Calling the military dregs of society is not conducive to Linder obtaining his ideal state, I am sure he believes that he would be able to accomplish this without the approval and admiration of the military, but this isn't looking at the matter realistically: The military could if it deems his ideal state a threat to the constitution, stamp it out quite easily, and it would not hesitate to do so if he decides to adopt this path. There are ample examples in history that demonstrate how the military responds to the message that it is to be dissolved, they almost always respond by grabbing power themselves. Especially when they perceive the state as being weak and incapable of self-defense, which Linder's are. That aside let's assume that it is even possible that he manages to defy the odds...does Linder instead propose elsewhere that we should opt for a civilian armed forces? How precisely does he propose that those who desire centralized government would not in fact seize this opportunity to create a centralized government contrary to his ideal of a business utopia? The situation is so unpredictable that there can be no guarantee that these civilian armed forces (mercenaries) would not either answer to the needs of their paymasters as previously mentioned, or simply disband his utopia and opt for a more centralized and realistic government structure. Unless of course he opts for the option to import foreign mercenaries who have no connection to the nation and therefore have no issue with any of the injustices passing under the libertarian utopia.

This is a key problem in libertarian thought: whether it is mainstream libertarianism or Linder's variant thereof. There is little or no consideration of the practical implications of their policy (or lack there of) as is evidenced in the long list of questions posed and contradictions that arise from them through investigating potential answers or solutions. There is a reason attempts were made at legislation's to be passed in order to protect the worker and the reasons stretch far deeper than merely stifling the freedom of the elite to maximize their profit. A competitive market and economic freedom does not despite the false beliefs of the majority, imply that one has the freedom to monopolize or that one has the freedom to undermine small business under the auspices that "the fittest survive". The unchecked nature of Capitalist thought led directly to the increasing loss of property among the common property owner and the small business man.

It is not because it requires genius to create business that the small business owner struggles to maintain his position in the market. It is because there is little to prevent big business from weeding him out. Several anti-competitive tactics are often employed to weed out the small business man, for instance: business drops the prices running at a loss for a short period forcing their competitors to apply the same methods in order to attract consumers to their products, which ultimately leads to bankruptcy. This turns the small business owner from an independent contributor to the market into a serf enthralled to big business. To use another example: Walmart and Compass demand that suppliers drop their prices to break even (or less) otherwise they will seek supply from other suppliers.

The logical questions that arise at this point would be: "how did unchecked capitalism lead to the increasing loss of property owned by the common man, as well as to the loss of property owned by the small business man?" and "how precisely does this make him enthralled to large business?"

Large business has a tendency to consume property and small businesses in the interest of growing its own market. Whether this be by deliberately providing a product in mass scale and at cheaper and worse quality than that of the small business owner, or simply buying them out, the end remains the same... It ultimately leads to an increasing loss of small property holders and an increasing grip on property by larger corporations. That is to say that the buying and selling power is largely in the hands of large corporations, even if they do sell this property to small and medium enterprises (if it is deemed to not be profitable) it is sold at prices that do not meet the value of the property. The reason this is done is to ensure that a profit is made from bought property rather than a loss. I am sure that most of you think at this juncture that if land is legally purchased, then it is legitimate and does indeed assist the small property owner as well as the economy financially. But this is not the case at all. You have probably played the popular board game monopoly and seen the results if one player gains control of two thirds or all of the property on the board: it makes it increasingly difficult for the other players to survive in the climate that is the game. Now granted you might smirk at this, and point out that life is not a board game and while this may be true, unchecked capitalism has precisely this same outcome. In so far as it (just as the board game) gradually stifles the economic freedom of the small to medium property and business owner and makes it increasingly difficult for small to medium enterprises and property owners to function, they will eventually (just as the player in the game) be forced to sell at a loss and file for bankruptcy.

On the other hand: land used for agriculture, which is the essential heart of any nation, is under constant pressure from developers seeking to buy the land and use it to develop urban sprawls. The houses may be sold, but the lease of the land still remains in the hands of the developer. This developer can at his own discretion (should the contract not stipulate otherwise) raise the rent of these houses as he sees fit, increasing the financial grip on the average citizen. Another point to consider is the fact that agricultural land purchased is never bought at the actual value of the farming land, simply because it is not calculated on its value to the nation, or its value to the farmer, or to the national community, but on its market value in terms of acres, which is a mechanistic and arbitrary method of evaluating the value of productive farming land. Farming land is not simply acres of sand: it is acres of productive land that produces the substance which gives the nation its independence from others and contributes to a healthy, vibrant national population.

It is here where we see the larger difference between the affects caused in reality and those caused in a board game. While these may affect the individual player in the game of monopoly, these practices affects each and every member of the folk in reality.

This is because the loss of valuable agricultural land, creates dependency on foreign food imports and it uproots the farmer from his natural element forcing him to adapt to a mechanized occupation that is not suited to his skill set. Now it may be argued that he should adapt and apply new skills in order to become more competitive. But all this does, is merely state that he should accept his lot and work toward a new lifestyle, thus taking the human factor out of it i.e. moral consideration of the lot of others is not taken into account, but is merely secondary to profit and the increase there of: anyone could then technically be systematically weeded out of their professions and simply be told to apply new skills so they can sustain a living. This is not just and it certainly is not in line with what we envision for our folk. We cannot place them second to profit nor can we condone disconnecting our folk from the land. Of course to this it could be responded that it was the farmers choice to sell his land. On this, I must disagree: it is rarely the case that a farmer sells his land out of choice, but more often than not because he is compelled to. Today, a local farmer producing local produce has to take into consideration factors outside his immediate market. That is to say: that any produce he makes locally, the same are imported by some large enterprise for cheaper and sold for cheaper on the market, making it increasingly difficult for the local farmer to sell his goods. The local farmer in turn has to cut prices and utilize less and less of his land as the cost of production exceeds that which he makes from the consumer, until ultimately he is not only incapable of sustaining himself, but incapable of sustaining the land, thereby forcing him to sell. This is why there is a need for fixed prices on produce, to give local farmers the ability to sell their produce and more so, to be assured as a constant what it is they can expect to get in return. On the other hand, the loss of small to medium sized businesses increases economic dependency on foreign business investments among our folk. Both of these lead to the same end, more and more people are forced to become dependents, and rest their fate entirely on the good fortunes of their employer. When you have economic independence and economic freedom (I discuss the nature of true economic freedom later in this section), skilled workers are more valuable and paid accordingly, checks are in place to ensure that they are rewarded for it. However, in a monopolized "capitalist/libertarian" society, there would be no demand for skilled workers because all work goes directly through a select few property owners. Meaning that they control the demand not vice versa. The value of such workers would diminish and they'd be paid to the extent of cheap labor and nothing more.

Another point to consider is: the loss of small and medium business could also lead to the demise of quality control as I have briefly mentioned earlier. I shall now explain what it is I mean by this:

Whether it is believed or not, it is highly probable that once there is little competition that maintains a quality standard, business would see no reason to ensure that they produce products that are top quality. As far as they'd be concerned, you should simply accept what is on offer for without them there to provide the product you wouldn't have it to begin with. We already see indications of this, several of our products are being made abroad at cheaper rates and with far less emphasis on "quality".

With these thoughts in mind, people should heed warning not to look at business practices from a direct perspective while neglecting entirely that there are various (and often used) indirect practices to achieve the desired effect for large corporations. The methods by which farmers are bought off their land are by no means ethical to say the least, they either have their produce sanctioned, or they are forced to buy their material from exclusive providers. This is also a method practiced to stifle the small business owner. If you are dependent on one supplier, you are dependent on his prices. There is no freedom to pick and choose a supplier as it fits your needs. It is not "liberating from economic tyranny" as Linder fancies his scheme to be, but quite the opposite that occurs...enslavement to the point where the farmer has little choice, but to leave behind the life that is so embedded in his blood.

With that said it is clear that economic freedom is not achieved when rested in the hands of the select few, or those capable of weeding out the small property holder. Just as freedom as a concept is not attained by catering for the minority of the population, what concerns freedom is how it is beneficial to the community as a whole. The benefit to society is determined by the results achieved. People reject policy not because it "limits freedom" but because it is damaging or detrimental, if the results are pleasing to the State and the folk, then the people will seek no reason to disband it.

Clearly an economic policy that caters for a select few individuals above the well-being of the folk is not a feasible alternative to the centralized government of today, much less to speak of one that is actually of benefit to the folk. One simply cannot substitute a sledgehammer with a bulldozer and call it a solution as Linder has done. Government is not there to ensure the well-being of the select few, but rather the well-being of the folk and the state as a whole, and while libertarians and Linder may have a point that today it is neglecting this task, it is inconceivable to suggest that the only solution is one, which is by far the worst imaginable...that is to say that the folk should be left to the devices of a system which in the past and the present showed its tendency to exploit. If business had been ethical and if it had been the solution to societies problems, then there would not have been a need for legislation and economic theory to prevent the exploitative tendencies of big business.

Linder cannot state that certain regulations would remain to ensure they (the worker) aren't bitten out by business in order to remedy these inconsistencies and if he does decide to argue in favor of it. How does he plan to institute a completely neutral committee to oversee that it complies to these regulations? And would this not then contradict his assertion that he would "free the business from economic tyranny"? It is always possible to accommodate certain regulations, but the more and more he does this, the less it becomes libertarianism, and the more it leans toward a centralized form of governing. It is folly to state that because the current establishment misuses funds appropriated through taxation, it's necessary to entirely do away with the system and entrust it to business which poses several severe problems if maintained unregulated, as is evidenced throughout this section.

We're going to need far more than mere "aesthetic dreams" to convince us that leaving our fate entirely up to business is the right choice for our folk and since reason contradicts this assertion, it would take a miracle of immense proportions to alter the fact that it simply will not work without it eventually ending in tears.

FREEDOM

The second issue on Linder's list is the matter of freedom. It is Linder's contention that less control by government ultimately means more freedom and that it is the key to the development of all the creative spirit within the folk [6]. Now obviously this only shows one thing:

Linder hasn't the faintest clue what precisely freedom means. He's under some false perception that freedom can only be attained when it is uninhibited as much as possible. While it may be true when you look at it from such a simplistic standpoint, it is by it's very nature anarchic as well. This is why we look at freedom in terms of how it relates to man and freedom as it relates to the community. These two concepts are interlocked and inseparable. That is to say that:

Freedom as it relates to man on an individual level needs to conform and be in harmony with freedom as it relates to the community. Obviously, if we allow man the freedom to inflict harm onto another, we equally disallow the victim the freedom to not be harmed, in this regard we restrict the freedom of one who desires the freedom to harm another for the good of the community (who desires co-existence in as peaceful a way as possible). It is not in uninhibited individual freedom that freedom as a whole is achieved, but by how it relates to the well-being of the community. This does not, however, mean that we prevent the individual's right of personal freedom. We fully acknowledge the right to personal freedom, provided that these do not in any way harm the community or the individual. That is to say: personal "freedoms" that are detrimental to the individual as well as to the folk, must be sacrificed for the good of the community and for the individual as well. Of course it could be argued that: what a person does in the privacy of his home is entirely his business and that we cannot possibly say that he must, be held accountable for actions committed in the privacy of his home. But here we touch upon an issue that depends entirely on the perception of the individual himself (as mentioned earlier) and what he thinks the freedoms he is entitled to are. While it may be true in most cases that we cannot intervene in the privacy of the individual's home. There are exceptions to this rule: It cannot be argued that the abuse of drugs is alright as long as it is done within the privacy of the individual's home. He may consider this a freedom he is entitled to have, but this puts at risk the well-being of every member of the folk that comes into contact with him throughout the duration of his intoxication. This sort of argument would also assume that an individual who acts irresponsibly has the responsibility to refrain from putting others at risk. Which simply isn't the case, if it is not directly endangering others lives, it is the selling of these substances to the community and the active recruiting of community members that's undertaken at every possible opportunity. Showing that: more often than not, these self damaging "personal freedoms" have community wide consequences. There are far more diabolical instances of perceived personal freedom that have harmed others and have ultimately left a community in shock. However, we need not delve into these as I trust that we've come to understand that there are with regard to the privacy of an individual's home, exceptions to the rule. And as a result of these exceptions demonstrable instances where, for the sake of the greater good certain personal freedoms must ultimately be sacrificed and actively worked against. And to do this, we make use of regulations called laws, which act as the checks (much like a maze) that guide man to his spiritual, moral and intellectual growth.

Consider the following thought experiment:

When science wishes to determine the faculties of an organism, it places them in a regulated environment so that they may extract the potential of the organism to its fullest extent, in any matter of problem solving and it frequently translates into success. The reason is because an organism that is placed into a regulated environment is able to use its cognitive abilities without distraction. However, if there are no such regulated environments in place, then these collective (and productive) energies would be dispersed with little guidance to ensure that they reach their maturity. Or to put it slightly different: castes will form within society, and each one would seek to impose its will on the other.

Now this is not to say that a human being is not a complicated organism, but in a society where several depend on one another it is equally necessary to ensure that distractions of an immoral nature do not occur. The checks imposed in order to secure freedom for all law abiding members of the folk are fundamentally no different to the regulated environments produced to ensure that distractions do not occur and that the maximum potential is extracted from the organism. Whereas without these checks in place it would collapse into a chaotic environment where the general well-being of the folk are in danger. Humans are for the most part in constant pursuit of happiness, and as a result of this pursuit of happiness, they are ill-inclined to refrain from immorality unless there are attached to these actions consequences as there is with any choices that are made. It had been shown countless times in society that people are easily susceptible to suggestion. It takes only a few to tempt with immorality for it to catch fire and stifle the moral fiber of the folk.

With this said:

If we consider the matter discussed previously it is obvious that when we review Linder's "White-Man-ISM" versus National Socialism, that National Socialism does indeed do far more to ensure that proper freedom is rewarded to the community. It is true that he could point to certain concepts of National Socialism that inhibit the "freedom of man," but only so far as he perceives these freedoms. That is to say that: what he considers free, others equally consider tyranny...If these checks ensure the advancement of the community as a whole, then freedom has indeed been ensured.

EDUCATION

Similarly to government, Linder argues that because the education system today is astronomically worse than home education, home education (based on a strictly intellectual curriculum) should be the absolute practice in his libertarian society.[7][8] There are several issues with this:

Linder assumes that every parent that elects to educate their child at home takes the toughest intellectual course possible for their child, which is simply not the case. More often than not they opt for the same curriculum that he considers to be "entirely geared to attitude adjustment" (see note 8). On the other hand, he also assumes that parents not themselves educated in a strictly intellectual curriculum, would be able to educate their children in such a rigorous education system. Even worse that they would enable the children to understand the courses with relative ease. Which upon close reflection is patently absurd: merely reading a wide array of books does not qualify a parent in the teaching of rigorous intellectual material. It requires in-depth knowledge of the material provided. A child needs to be guided and explained the content of his school curriculum, something an untrained parent cannot do in a complex school curriculum.

Linder further assumes that every parent would willingly do so; this is also not the case: Home education today is done by parents who elect to accept that responsibility, it is not mandatory. In a "loosely free" libertarian society, there can be no checks in place to ensure that all parents adhere to this responsibility. That is to say that: they cannot be forced to ensure proper education for the youth of the society. Of course, Linder could (as is his custom to do) sway between the two options (his and the one provided here) and enact such a law to ensure proper education. This however, is a particularly tricky matter, as it is in essence in the privacy of the citizen's home and we could equally then implement various other laws on the grounds that what the citizen does in the privacy of his home is detrimental to society as a whole. Including the matter of homosexuality, which Linder deems "alright as long as it is in the closet".[9] Clearly the one contradicts the other. Linder cannot be in favor of imposed laws like these regarding home education, whilst considering the other as "beyond the bounds of the law" if it is maintained in the privacy of the house. Especially when he considers homosexuality to be damaging to the community.

That's precisely the problem law makers had in the early 19th century and this is precisely why the public school system was created. It alleviated the parents from this responsibility and ensured maximum privacy at home without violation. I am sure some would consider the possibility that because education in general is mandatory that it is fundamentally no different to implementing these laws that violate the privacy of home decisions and choices, but this is not the case. In providing optional public schooling a choice is provided for the parent, to either elect to home school their children; or to grant the responsibility to the State; or on the other hand private institutions to do so. In Linder's libertarianism there is no choice regarding the matter, which makes it less a matter of 'freedom' than the solution provided by the state and private institutions.

Of course we could repeat the fact that this system is abused today, and that the education curriculum is extremely dumbed down. But when one discusses a theoretical future state (as Linder does) he must take into account the fact that a rigorous, and well-balanced education system within an Aryan society would be better able to ensure that children are properly educated. As it would serve as a beacon in the community guiding our youth back to their natural roles. This is something, Linder's libertarian ideal cannot guarantee. His strict home school policy will leave our youth susceptible to the very ideals that have led us down this path to begin with. Linder wrongly assumes that once he achieves success, every single individual in his society would convert to a full-blown racial libertarian. Whilst at the same time acknowledging that this isn't feasible at all...i.e. He acknowledged that it is necessary at first to deal away with non-whites and such, under the auspices of a racial dictatorship. [10] but thinks this will only be necessary until these threats are removed. Once they are removed, society will be blissful and we could return to a state of statelessness. Which begs the question: If Linder considers the only solution to the racial question an authoritarian interim government, why does he neglect the most important aspect of the folk, its youth? It is absurd to think that one merely has to rectify the racial demographic and society would magically balance itself to a state of serenity.

The problems that we face aren't merely rectified in one generation or in a few years, it is a condition that requires constant monitoring which can only be attained by means of proper governmental ground work. The concept of a thousand year Reich was not because National Socialism envisioned itself as a "political messiah" as some have come to think, it is because it recognized that ideas have a lasting effect whether they are demonstrable within society or not. It is necessary to have a system in place that lasts long enough to reintroduce racial principles into our folk; so it once more becomes a natural instinct.

HOW LINDER'S BAND OF LIBERTARIANS ARGUE AGAINST NATIONAL SOCIALISM

Recently, in order to further boast his libertarian ideals, Linder and his band of libertarians decided to in effect lash out against National Socialism and its perceived "tyrannical laws" which had been passed. In this section, we will deal with several of these issues brought up during his discussion about the libertarian ideal. The topics will be dealt with in a Statement & Answer format, so as to maintain consistency. For the purposes of consistency, I've made these statements according to a general outline. The verbatim statements can be found in the source.

"Libertarianism offers freedom of association"[11]

To this, we answer: In National Socialism today as well as in Germany, people do and did have the freedom to associate with whom they please. You may consider this statement preposterous and point to the fact that they were not allowed to associate with non-Whites, Jews, communists and so forth...but I could equally point out that your position is patently absurd on the basis that you maintain fully that your society will only function once these elements are not in it. I could equally then, turn the question on you and ask why you prevent the freedom of association between European and black, European and Jew and communist and libertarian?

"What if I don't want to associate with a National Socialist, would they be alright with it?"[See note 11]

To this we answer: There were several party members in National Socialist Germany who associated freely with non-party members. People who elected to not join the party; or any of its branches were not hindered in any of their day to day activities. There was no discrimination against people on the basis that they either did not "vote" or are not members of the National Socialist party. The same would apply today, National Socialism adheres to a strict folkish concept: we love our folk and our single drive is to secure its survival and ensure that it continues its advancement to its highest potential. Obviously when we consider this fact, there is little to suggest that we would go so far as to discriminate against law abiding members of our folk. Of course, you could always argue that there have been instances where members of the folk in National Socialist Germany were prosecuted for practicing communist ideals, but this would be hypocritical to mention considering that it is doubtful that you would tolerate individuals who practice egalitarianism in your exclusive libertarian "society".

"In National Socialism, the controlled media will not report your point of view"[12]

To this we answer: It is in the interest of any institution whether it be Government or in your case a lack there of, to perpetuate their ideals. It is essential to the existence of ideologies to do so. Whether you propagandize 80% of material that are libertarian and allow 20% of the arguments that are easily swatted for the purposes of making your own ideal appear that much more solid, makes your media no less controlled than those of any other State.

We already observe this tendency on your part, eagerly threatening to silence those who oppose your visions, and sometimes out right silence them entirely should they provide a bit too much opposition and too many arguments that you are unable to answer directly yourself.

"National Socialism is out dated and won't work in America"[13]

To this we answer: National Socialism is an organism in and of itself, it continuously adapts and evolves as time flows by, which makes it I dare say the most modern World view that exists today. And on the other hand because it is adaptable and because it does evolve, it is equally workable in the United States. It is foolish to believe that we could simply copy German National Socialism which evolved from German culture, German thought and German historical background and paste it into Denmark and expect it to work. It would logically and by its very nature adapt in accordance with their culture, thought and background, just as it would do the same in the United States.

SUMMARY

Throughout this essay, I've explored several key points in Linder's libertarian ideals, and it is through this exploration that I conclude the following reasons as to why it is a flawed utopic pipe dream: On his ideas to replace government with private business we concluded that one cannot expect business to not abuse the power granted to them over the citizen body. On his ideas for an education system we concluded that it cannot be expected that an education system based on pure homeschooling would work in a reasonable sense because it lacks the elements that provide a lasting framework for the folk. Also, that not everyone has the free time at their disposal to handle such a rigorous education system as Linder has in mind, neither do they have the correct training in understanding these materials. Lastly, on the concepts of Linder's "freedom" we concluded that it is folly to expect freedom to be "loosely defined" based on "less control" without it inevitably leading to an increasingly immoral society.

It appears as though libertarianism is a political concept that needs to be taken on good faith and warm sentimental feelings rather than calculated and well thought out solutions. Clearly this is not a feasible solution to the problems we face today, nor is this the kind of system in which we should trust the future of our folk.

Notes:

[1] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 21st September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1052484&postcount=60

[2] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 21st September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1052494&postcount=61

[3] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 20th September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1052221&postcount=32

[4] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 21st September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1052484&postcount=60

[5] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 21st September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1052494&postcount=61

[6] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 22nd September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1052983&postcount=139

[7] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 22nd September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1053088&postcount=153

[8] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 23rd September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1053088&postcount=163

[9] Linder, Alex. “The Continental Divide Poll: Where WN Stand on Government”. Vanguard News Network. 2nd October 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1056672&postcount=71

[10] Linder, Alex. "The Continental Divide Poll: Where WN Stand on Government". Vanguard News Network. 1st October 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1056266&postcount=1

[11] SteveB. "The Continental Divide Poll: Where WN Stand on Government". Vanguard News Network. 1st October 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1056295&postcount=8

[12] Linder, Alex. "The Libertarianism Is Poison". Vanguard News Network. 21st September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1052404&postcount=47

[13] Bandanza, Robert. "The Continental Divide Poll: Where WN Stand on Government". Vanguard News Network. 1st October 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1056305&postcount=10