Tab Content
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-08-2017, 09:36 PM
    Haha, nope. I'm much too Socialistic for that. I became a Monarchist years ago after listening to Hoppe and reading the Mad Monarchist blog.
    581 replies | 7267 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-08-2017, 06:00 PM
    Are you aware of Alt-Tech and Stallman's Free/Open software movement? Get involved and start using alternatives. Right now people are crowd-funding a Linux "free software pro-privacy" phone by Purism which is going to be a nice alternative to Google & Apple. Before that you can do simple things like use Brave browser (on phone & PC) and always search with DuckDuckGo.
    10 replies | 305 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-08-2017, 05:41 PM
    Monarchies (I'm a Monarchist by the way) go back to the genesis of Humanity and rarely ever evolve into a total State-controlled culture. That model is simply economically inefficient- localization and democratization (not necessarily in terms of electoral politics but worker control over industry, somewhat expressed by Guilds in Medieval Europe) work better than bureaucracies. Royals have no desire to destroy their investment with short-term economic measures and no need to look out for the interests of lobbyists. Most Kings traditionally took a "hands-off" approach to a ton of internal affairs in their country. Some right-libertarians have adopted Hoppean Monarchism for this very reason, actually.
    581 replies | 7267 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-08-2017, 05:33 PM
    Precisely this. Anarchies tend to be fleeting and on the edge of civilization. Iceland and Ireland enjoyed a natural geographic separation from rival powers and even then the threat of a State managed to emerge either internally through disputes or an external military force. Armies can coordinate and build up massive amounts of resources and supplies in such a short amount of time that no Anarchy could successfully rival. When the Paris Commune had an issue with French forces on their border they ineffectively funded a guard/militia type defense and it failed miserably against a hierarchical, disciplined force with more resources. Similar to this, Catalonia was out-bested economically by the Soviet-backed State Socialist forces and Fascist brownshirts. Rome's entire history is basically one long example of a powerful State out-smarting, out-financing, and out-maneuvering tribal confederacies that bordered it. Just look at Ceasar's conquest of Gaul: a powerful Empire is able to exploit tribal rivalries along with offering economic advantages to tribal allies. Ironically enough, the most successful resistances of Roman power were when 'barbarians' managed to become like the Romans in terms of centralization and standardization of governments and military units. Examples of guerrilla warfare against powerful empires are interesting yet they tend to be rather rare and exceptions to the rule. One may be tempted to point to Vietnam was instances of guerrilla troops beating back an empire but consider the following: - America was not playing by the historical "total warfare" model (kill every man, woman, child, burn the village/farm, and enslave anyone still surviving) - Vietcong were backed by Chinese and Soviet powers, hardly a case of a free people rising up against a mighty empire. They were well funded and supported. I'd imagine if America turned into a stateless society overnight that you would find things analogous to the historical aforementioned problems. Imagine if hippy "go-green" areas of America wanted to promote green energy and managed to cut out coal totally from their economy, stopping all imports of said products based upon NAP or whatever moral imperative they had. Then imagine China invades the continent- taking resources and creating a new vassal state to benefit their burgeoning Empire. Also imagine they import heavy amounts of coal. What would the coal-based anarchies of West Virginia do in this situation assuming China cuts them a deal and agrees to buy from them in support of their mutual interests? Would they seriously go, "Well our entire lifestyle and economy is based around this one resource but... screw it! We'll side with our neighbors in Cali because... freedom or something!" May be.. but unlikely.
    581 replies | 7267 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-08-2017, 05:06 PM
    In reality an open borders scenario would end up similar to that of America's southwest. Massive bloc voting, little economic benefit (silly excuse for immigration by the way), social disruption, cultural tensions, and an increasing wealth inequality along with oligarchies. Even as someone who isn't "libertarian" one could see the ramifications of such hasty decision-making. Right now America is a population of 300 million people, if your goal is to enact Libertarianism and Austrian economics in its purest Somalian-esque form, then please tell me how that is going to happen once the population increases to over 1.5 billion with most of its populace being foreign-born and a non-American outlook? Serious question. Please tell me how you're going to get over 50% of Reps in the House (even under our current system that's absurd) or a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Even if you did manage this feat, how would you enact legislation in light of the barrage of constant MSM attacks, masses of people protesting/rioting, and pressure from the moderates within your camp who wish to save face and are more concerned with PR than ideology? Imagine Libertarians trying to undo universal health care or cut back on footstamps- the Media will focus on someone dying in the streets and run the clip endlessly with millions protesting and begging for your politicians' removal. Nonsense. Let's use the American term for 'state' shall we? My state and surrounding area have tons of State intervention into the economy, along with high taxes and sensible views on unionization and labor. We have tons of industry here and people migrating from all over the country to work around my area. Where are the people dying to get into an extreme laissez-fairez part of Alabama? Where are the capitalists going down there to build massive industries? Oh yeah that's right- we have a foundation and infrastructure here and corporations are more than willing to "play ball" to stay here, same thing happened when Britain & Seattle enacted so-called "Socialistic" reforms such as raising minimum wage. In the end the businesses play ball and will work with the State when necessary for their survival and profit. Also, there aren't any serious economic reasons to think State intervention facilitates poverty and stagnation. Rather, we see soft Corporatist areas in Europe that have sensible coordination between the laborer, property owner, and State for mutual benefit, this is due to necessary and intelligent intervention into the economy.
    16 replies | 317 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-05-2017, 06:46 PM
    Yeah but my point is that everything else was tied into slavery at some point, no? Like the whole "State's rights" issue might have some legit points- but it was only brought up because slavery was becoming an increasingly bigger issue.
    146 replies | 2797 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-05-2017, 06:37 PM
    Translation = unapologetic nation-wide slavery that can't be questioned. Great system..
    146 replies | 2797 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-05-2017, 06:36 PM
    I've heard the alternatives before and let's imagine a world where slavery didn't exist in America. Do you think tariffs, cultural issues, and some different economic structures would be enough for the South to randomly rise up and go, "alright we're done here" I really just don't buy it- I'm not saying you're wrong concerning there being other variables but the opinion of most historians is that slavery was the issue, everything else wasn't secession-worthy.
    146 replies | 2797 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-05-2017, 06:34 PM
    I don't see how...
    48 replies | 1266 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-05-2017, 06:32 PM
    How would America defend itself against the British Empire if literally every State pulled apart from the Federal gov almost instantly? That's one of my issues with Anarchists- you need a decent amount of centralization to keep things in order. Constitution was an improvement upon the Articles for that reason.
    146 replies | 2797 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-05-2017, 06:21 PM
    I saw this video before. The Middle East is doing so much better now that it has democracy.
    1 replies | 192 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-05-2017, 06:20 PM
    My problem with that view is that we would've fragmented America into a million little pieces by now. The Founders always had a notion of a perpetual union one could correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that exact phrase was used in the Articles of Confederation. One could imagine a scenario where every piece of America splits once an unpopular President or law gets passed- I recall there were major pre-Civil War secessionist movements, one being centered in New England as a response to the Union growing and "old school Americans" feeling underrepresented.
    146 replies | 2797 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-05-2017, 06:15 PM
    Well I didn't go through the article enough to respond but it listed the "agrarian South vs. industrial north" as the number 1 cause of the split. Uhh, what do people the South meant by identifying as 'agrarian?' Yes, it was agrarian and it was economically efficient to own & use slaves in the agrarian south than anything else- hence the split. It's like the people that use "State's rights" as an argument.. yeah it was over states' rights- the right for a state to allow slavery. Come on people.. I can respect the CSA for certain things and recognize the time period, I'll always think Robert E Lee was a principled, respected man. But this is just silly. Also am I mistaken to say the CSA was rather anti-liberal and anti-states rights itself? Their Constitution allowed a huge amount of leeway for their Feds to intervene when necessary.
    146 replies | 2797 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-05-2017, 06:11 PM
    Roosevelt's environmental plans weren't bad- Conservatives probably could've gotten behind it as well. But I'm honestly curious- what do you guys think should happen to a State that is trying to leave the union but endorses something as bad as slavery? That's a huge moral crime we're dealing with..
    146 replies | 2797 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-05-2017, 05:51 PM
    Honest to God.. that was probably the most insane article I've ever read. Wow...... The GOP had a terrific start- from Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt it was an almost perfect Party. We started failing when the Conservatives took over and crashed the economy, then we went into a minority position for decades due to the forward-thinking New Deal coalition. Eisenhower (a Progressive mind you) helped bring the Party back to its respectable past. Reagan & his ideological successors have largely failed and seem to be on their way out due to the Trump hegemony. However, the premise of the article is correct- Paul & the more "small government, free market" types would historically belong to the Democratic Party. There was a switch in the 20th century where Progressives moved to the DNC & Conservatives slowly migrated out of the Democratic Party. Even today we have Blue Dogs and moderates who are a remnant of a different era.
    146 replies | 2797 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-05-2017, 05:45 PM
    I have some old Confederate currency and a lot of Perth Mint Aussie coins. Try to collect them when I can.
    833 replies | 49962 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-05-2017, 05:44 PM
    Styx, the popular Libertarian youtuber that advocates for DACA amnesty and relatively liberal immigration laws, is now apart of the radical Right according to the leftist activist site "Right Wing Watch." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIBnZtnNV8s Source: http://archive.is/F91LO
    0 replies | 70 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-03-2017, 07:17 PM
    I'm kinda a kook when it comes to conspiracies and ancient civilizations and my personal theory is that Africa, Europe, and the Americas were more connected than previously thought. Recently there was a peer-reviewed paper published in some journal making the case that Neanderthals may have inhabited America prior to **** Sapien arrival. Some interesting evidence for it too: distinct Neanderthal carvings in Mammoth tusk and bones. With the "Ice Age Columbus" Solutrean thing-- I tend to believe in it. But it doesn't change the fact that Solutreans were the ancestors of Amerindians, not Europeans- so Natives would be the heirs still.
    48 replies | 1266 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-03-2017, 06:57 PM
    What an awful thread, are you guys still really parading this "Civil War wasn't about slavery" nonsense? When I was younger I thought this was some smart little historical quip- "actually it was over states' rights and economic differences!" Then as I researched it further, spoke personally with historians knowledgeable on the period, and looked into it myself I realized, "oh yeah.... it was just about slavery." While there may have been other factors- those other factors were largely irrecoverably linked with slavery, hence the whole states rights/10th Amendment argument in the first place. Look up the phrase "Lost Cause" and get some scholarly material on it before repeating talking points coming out of fringe areas of the web. Exactly- also I don't see how a single state in the CSA would be able to outlaw slavery. From my understanding of the southern economy it was basically a slave market. You were either a slave holder or someone that indirectly worked for someone owning a slave- wasn't exactly an industrial revolution going on with a plethora of factory jobs for people to get into. Outlawing slavery would be like New England voluntarily outlawing factories- just wouldn't happen. Ultimately, the Federal Government had to forcefully end slavery due to abolitionist pressure.
    146 replies | 2797 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-03-2017, 06:30 PM
    Molyneux has made some other bone-headed statements in the past which made him an all-star on Reddit's "BadHistory" subreddit. I might have to submit this video as a new one. Not related to this thread but you'd probably get a kick out of it: Molyneux's take on Ancient Rome: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/4f0g7w/from_the_physicstranscending_mind_of_stefan/ Molyneux thinks Statism killed Rome: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/53hg3c/click_here_this_guy_found_one_weird_trick_to/ Molyneux, The German Empire apologist: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/41y8kc/ubreaksfull_encounters_molyneux_madness/
    48 replies | 1266 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-03-2017, 06:23 PM
    Thank you for directing me over here. I can't even watch Molyneux speak- it's so cringe-worthy. Unfortunately, Native Americans had the unlucky circumstance of being a paleolithic people with new farming neighbors. One can't overstate the significance of this. I remember reading about how the early Jamestown settlements allowed sheep, cattle, and other European farm animals to roam freely causing devastation to neighboring tribes bordering the settlement. Their response was a hostile one- they attacked. But it was honestly justified- their way of life depended on hunting & gathering and they had a culture next door that had an abundance of animals grazing, destroying the plants like a damn lawnmower. I'm sure this same thing happened when Neolithic people entered Africa, rest of Middle East, Europe, Asia, etc.. but it's just a sad circumstance. This isn't even to get into the actual wars & displacements of natives... Also, this is kind of a pet peeve of mine since I'm a history buff but I hate people that just dismiss cultures as "primitive." Every. Single. Culture. Was. Primitive. Once.We don't advance in some comical linear line- it's more like a mountain ridge. A society that relied largely upon hunting/gathering had more free time and probably a happier existence than a distant slave-based Empire. Not to sound like an Anarcho-primitivist "kill the farmers" type person but there's some truth to it all. Australian aboriginees were happy living a hunter-gatherer existence, didn't mean we had to have settlers displace them because they weren't "up to par" with their technological status. It's the equivalent of if China built up a massive fleet of ships and invaded Medieval Europe and displace millions of people cuz "lulz u ain't shit compared to us" you'd think we'd feel some moral qualms about it and protest the action? Also it begs the question- what's this magical level of tech does one need in order not to be genocided? If N. American natives were farmers then would it have been wrong to displace them? So stupid...
    48 replies | 1266 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-03-2017, 05:44 PM
    So far the Anti-Bannon crowd seemed to go off of inferences, guesswork, and sloppy equivocations based on terminology. We're hitting page 3 (on my end) of the thread and little has been said to make the case of Breitbart's racism. Any objective bystander would be wholly unimpressed. Concerning the term "Alt-Right," its genesis is two-fold which adds to the confusion. The above posters participating in this thread trying to link the two are clearly ignorant of how it developed. Despite it being coined by Spencer it was shortly abandoned thereafter due to obscurity; if memory serves me correctly the registered domain by Richard was dropped since it was so rarely used. Afterwards, MRA types started picking up on it as a "Right-wing" position (culture, tad nativistic, language, Conservative values, all the typical Republican social talking points) whilst not necessarily holding typical Conservative economic views. Shortly after this happened Milo & the PJW types picked up and ran with it, along with us Donald Trump supporters. So there's a dual "New Right" & Spencer origin of the word. My inclination is that Bannon's self-identification has more to do with the former than the latter, as I'm unaware of any other connections and the users in this thread have raged empty-handed. It's also interesting to note that most of these mainstream "Alt-Righters" (like Milo) are just typical Republicans that tend to be non-PC as opposed to having great ideological divergence from the Austrian/Small government/Conservative rhetoric that dominates the Republican Party. If we're going the "He's alt-right, alt-right are evil bad racist people" route then one could define Ron Paul as an ideological heir to Proudhon based upon his misusage of the term "Libertarianism." Silly arguments, all around.
    66 replies | 1533 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-03-2017, 05:32 PM
    Uh oh, you got me- I'm a Socialist. Just like I said in about every single post since I joined here as of late. Wow, what a shocking exposé. For most of the world (and most young Americans) "Socialism" is merely an acceptable alternative economic structure (thank you Bernie <3 ) so trying to use it as an ad hominem is a poor propaganda tactic- it's non-offensive. Care to derail the thread further with your barely legible temper tantrum? I'm having a good enough laugh thus far. What a shame, negative reps on a message board- you sure showed me, that'll bring the hustle & bustle back to RPF. Also curious as to how anything I said in this thread constituted "parroting white nationalist pap?" Apparently talking about Salon's headlines and rampant anti-white racism on the Left means one is a "white nationalist." More cigar ashes, Detective Columbo? Also, be cautious about your use of the word 'racist' when you worship at the feet of a Congressman who openly defends the slave-empire known as the Confederate States of America and suggested that slave-owners be "compensated for their property loss." As opposed to the great intellectual "revolution" parroting unsophisticated moral dogmas and clumsily applying it in real world scenarios, such as laughably equating taxation with theft. Have to hand it to you, it's quite an amazing feat to post 11,000 times and still exist in a virtual echo chamber.
    66 replies | 1533 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-02-2017, 08:04 PM
    I think Bannon's removal was nothing less than a soft coup. Warmongers, corporate lobbyists, and the usual "Swamp" types against an outsider. I'm somewhat of a conspiracy guy and I remember MSNBC, CNN, and the usual crew running non-stop attacks against Bannon of all people- as if he was this unhinged radical. Joe Scarborough use to write articles and headline his show with "President Bannon" claiming Trump was a mere puppet of some radical extermist. None of it EVER made sense since Bannon was the one guy who was outside and generally a peace-knick. Who remains in Trump's cabinet that isn't one of the insiders at this point? Gorka and those guys are long gone... seems like the coup was successful.
    66 replies | 1533 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-02-2017, 07:59 PM
    Moore was the political upset of the year. Don't think the GOPe hasn't taken notice, Corker resigned shortly afterwards. I wonder if 2018 is going to be the year of the Populist-Conservative insurgence which is fueled by the leftovers of the 2016 "MAGA" movement. Ann Coulter the other day said "MAGA movement" people will go beyond Trump if necessary, and it seems like Alabama proves such is the case.
    33 replies | 1984 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-02-2017, 07:34 PM
    Haha, gotta love the RonPaulForums. I suppose you're showing that great Libertarian love that everyone talks about. No, I'm sympathetic to your cause and my history speaks for itself. Also, my activity on Libertarian message boards predates your 2008 account, not that I'm bragging. Once upon a time I was a "Libertarian" (improperly using that term, by the way) and supported RP during the 2008 & 2012 elections. How this is relevant to Breitbart, the Alt-Right, or the discussion in this thread remains a mystery. Now onto the garbage spewing from the rest of your poorly-worded drivel: Care to show examples of me promoting National Socialism? Kind of curious since I self-identify as a Socialist and strongly disagree with the association of Socialism with the Third Reich. Politics 101- States, especially authoritarian regimes, often self-identify inaccurately. For instance, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is neither a Republic or Democratic in any sane sense of the word. However, since you believe that authoritarian regimes ought to take possession of political terms you have to concede and accept the Kim Dynasty's terminology. Silly argument. I'd love to see the myriad of examples of worker-controlled industry under Hitler's regime, you'd be better off associating me with Mussolini's Italy or Franco's Spain if you were attempting to make some weird genetic fallacy argument. No, my type of Socialist largely stems from the Libertarian Socialist tradition- more accurately Proudhon & successors. One could easily find this by reading through my posts, although I'm sure my whopping 5 post count is just a tad too much for you to handle.
    66 replies | 1533 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-02-2017, 07:12 PM
    #StateIsAPresupposedSocialContractAndMoreAnalagousToAPlatonicFormThanApurelyNominalistMentalConstruct Oof.. that what a mouthful. Problem is that just about every major institution bows down to SJWs & sympathizers. Corporations, State officials, media outlets, religious authorities, and now sports teams. Over the past several months we've seen an unprecedented amount of censorship, wicked collaboration between private entities, and suppression by these powers; as was the case of GAB. The NFL boycott seems so small in the grand scheme of things where the populace is largely apathetic.
    488 replies | 10279 view(s)
  • Identity's Avatar
    10-02-2017, 07:05 PM
    Seems as if the user "r3volution 3.0" neg repped my comment. Honestly, I'm curious how anything I asked was offensive? I suppose that Salon's comments (and the above general anti-white hysteria that has gripped this country) are totally appropriate to these so-called "anti-racist" radicals. Just don't bring up the on-going discrimination against Tibetans, indigenous Taiwanese, Latin America class (and race) segregation, and cruelty inflicted upon the Kurds- this does damage to their "white people are responsible for racism" narrative. Then again, what kind of intellectual depth could one except from a grown adult that makes the laughable claim of taxation being theft or presupposes the arbitrary (and morally ambiguous) NAP? Gotta love those Mises quotes.
    66 replies | 1533 view(s)
More Activity
About Identity

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Political / Activist Bio:
Monarchist. Evolan Traditionalist. Identitarian. Socialist (Syndicalist with sympathies to Corporatism)
Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
33
Posts Per Day
1.49
General Information
Last Activity
10-12-2017 02:07 PM
Join Date
09-28-2017
Referrals
0
No results to display...
No results to display...

10-08-2017


10-06-2017


10-05-2017


10-04-2017


10-03-2017


10-02-2017