jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
When war comes, the brown democrats will see Jews as white Europeans, as you do, but this is going to come as a mighty big shock to a great many Jews.
On 2019-08-16 4:01 am, Punk wrote:
I don't think so - jews are not that stupid.
They have been exactly that stupid in the Islamisation of France, which they are now fleeing.
Many, probably most Jews, do not think of themselves as white Europeans.
It doesn't matter, that's what they are.
That most of them do not think of themselves as Europeans means they do stupid shit as they did in France. Which matters enough that Jews are fleeing, and have largely fled, France.
The problem with your views is that you as a racist want to explain politics in terms of 'race'. Note that of course there's no Jewish race. Jewism is just a pseudo culture.
Jews vote on their ethnicity, not on their economic class. The problem is not that I am "racist", but that every voting block mobilized by the Democrats is "racist".
And if, not what 'race' do you think they belong to?
What matters is not what race I think they belong to, but what race they think they belong to.
there's no jew race.
Persuade them of that.
So at this point, I have to rhetorically ask, what class do you think you belong to?
Reactionaries don't believe in the Marxist class analysis, neither did Lysander Spooner, whom you claim to be an adherent of. The reactionary class categorization is priests (including professors, the mainstream media, public intellectuals, lawyers, judges, etc) warriors (including officers, soldiers, police, rentacops, mercs, etc) merchants (capitalists, entrepeneurs, businessmen, and such) and the masses. In which categorization I am primarily a merchant, trying out for the priesthood. But I spend more time on merchant stuff.
And what are your political beliefs? The only reason I ask is because the very first author that shows up on jim.com is Lysander Spooner, but, YOU NEVER READ A WORD HE WROTE.
You interpret Lysander Spooner as a commie. I interpret him otherwise. I was an anarcho capitalist, but as tribalism grew, I realized that anarcho capitalism was incapable of defending itself against tribes and religions (defining religions broadly, as I have defined priests broadly, to include communism and progressivism) Something like anarchocapitalism worked in saga period Iceland because it was a state enforced theocracy, and the official religion upheld the right of every man to himself avenge wrongs done to him - the official religion denied the state the monopoly of legitimate of violence. The fragility of that system became apparent when Christianity hit them. I have therefore come to the conclusion that the best system is a long established and stable monarchy, as exemplified by the Emirate of Dubai, and such monarchies can only grow out of military dictatorship. So I now favor military dictatorship, thinly disguised as the Republic, for America, as Augustus become military dictator of Rome, under a thin disguise of the Republic continuing. Which is the usual outcome when democracy self destructs, as it is self destructing now. The outcome I hope for is Holy American Emperor Trump, King under God, but a more likely and more readily achievable outcome is God Emperor Trump. And a far more likely outcome than either of those is a long period of chaos and ruin.
...And so we get a ruling elite that fails to hold together.
And why is that a problem for LIBERTARIANS?
One King three thousand miles is a lesser problem than a thousand kings three miles away. The loss of cohesion in the ruling elite leads to anarcho tyranny, not anarcho capitalism. Yesterday I was trying to transfer a sum of money while avoiding tax impact, and one bank thought the legalities worked one way, and the other bank thought the legalities worked a different way, and they could not agree because the laws and regulations are complicated, intrusive, obscure, incomprehensible, there is no one who actually knows what that mean, except that no matter what you do, if they want to charge you with something, they will probably find something to charge you with.
.... So you don't have any definition for "left"? or "right" for that matter.4
Right and left were defined in the FrenchRevolution.
And the right defended monarchy, feudalism and theocracy while the left opposed it.
What the french left supported in place of monarchy, feudalism, and theocracy was terror, mass murder, socialism, total war, and the enlightenment, the enlightenment being a state imposed religion immensely more destructive than Christianity.
So AGAIN, why does jim.com pretend to be libertarian when you are a RIGHT WINGER, AND SO A MONARCHIST?
Dubai. I want liberty. If you want liberty, China is better than the US, but Dubai (Monarchy) and Thailand (Monarchy plus military dictatorship) a lot better than either the US or China. The greatest period of liberty was England from 1660 to 1820, when Kings had real power. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus