1) a nation based on race has to keep other races out;

2) a country unified only by principles or the American Ideal or Wordism has to keep other IDEAS out.

You simply cannot have free speech a country whose only unifying force is “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

When you define patriotism as a set of words, a propositional, a BELIEF, you also define TREASON as having the wrong ideas and being loyal to the wrong proposition. No matter whether the Wordism is “all men are created equal” or Marxism or Catholicism or Islam or Protestantism, you simply cannot allow anyone to say things that might damage the proposition which is the only foundation your country has.

A nation based on race, like the original United States, can afford free speech.

A country based on Wordism, or “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” must impose that proposition on everybody in the country.

That is why I said that a RACIAL state can afford plenty of variety of IDEAS. If some people want to live in a place where revellie sounds at 6 am and everybody has to turn out to do a Nazi march, they go to that community.

If someone wants anarchy, they go to the anarchy place.

Their only obligation is to stand for their race.

No free riders on RACE.

But variety of IDEAS? Variety of living styles?

Sure. Why not?

Wordism is a diversity of races and only one single “multiculture.” Even its racial diversity itself has to be uniform in a propositional or Wordist state.

A race-based state offers every kind of real variety.

Someone in Stormfront brought up this very important question. I quote him below.

Any political movement faces the question, “What will you replace the present system WITH?”

So here are my first thoughts on the matter:

——————————————————————————–

It is probably my Southern upbringing, but I like decentralization.

Not States’ Right. That means nothing any more.

But I would like a united white people who have districts governed in different ways to let people which white area they want to live in.

No, I have no real outline for this, but it looks to me as if technology is moving in that direction. It is less and less necessary for people to cluster around a single city or a single factory. I know people who work in South Carolina but whose computer company is on the West Coast.

I talked today to an Indian sitting ten thousand miles from here who is doing exactly what a person in New York would be doing.

In my lifetime the primary choice of a place to live was based on where you worked. That is less true every single day.

We really don’t care what system you live under if you are loyal to our race and stand together.

In fact, the thing that has always separated our race into defenseless segments has been that we got obsessed with ideological conflicts.

If you want to be in a Nazi society, you go to that area. If you want racialist libertarianism, you buy a place forty miles away.

So much for ideological fights.

Do you want an area where they speak German? That sixty miles west of the area where they speak Norwegian, you know, just west of the Afrikaans area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John
I’d like to start this thread in order to discuss just exactly what form of government a White Nation would develop. Would it be democratic? Theocratic? Would it be a monarchy or a dictatorship? I don’t know.

I think there is a common misconception with regards to the definition of the terms liberal and conservative when it comes to governmental philosophy. We hear the terms used all the time, but they often times don’t make sense. In my mind the terms exist on a continuium with Liberalism on the Left and Conservativism on the right. Please take a look at the following continuium:

Totalitarian — Religous Oligarchy — Monarchy — Dictatorship — Federal (Two Party) Republic — Democratic (Multi-Party) Republic — Anarchy

In my mind, liberalism is more totalitarian while conservativism is more anarchistic. Am I all ate up? Does this make sense to you all?

What form of government would a White Nation develop?

Elizabeth says,

“Incidentally, my favorite science fiction short story
is the one by Larry Niven about the bartender talking with
the very old creature (a chirpsithra)who remembered
visiting Earth when oxygen was a poisonous substance and
chlorophyll was threatening the dominant life form. ”

The story was called “The Green Plague.”

It talked about the greatest environmental catastrophe in earth’s history. Green plants evolved and began to take the carbon dioxide from the air and send out oxygen.

Early in earth’s history all life was sulfur based. Then the atmosphere became polluted by a substance so vicious that it actually ate iron. All the life forms at the time were destroyed or driven underground.

This murderous pollutant was oxygen. It is so potent that if you put water on iron the iron will be eaten away. Before this environmental disaster you couldn’t light a fire on earth. But this oxygen pollutant allowed fires to occur.

Niven did invent the idea that there were sentient sulfur-based beings before The Green Plague, but the rest of the story is based on fact.

LibAnon used to call himself Anonymous. Then Anonymous changed his name to LibAnon.

This may be the only time in history when Anonymous changed his name.

So now I don’t know who Anonymous is.

Now THAT appeals to my sense of humor.

So here is the comment from the present Anonymous:

“Now there is a movement underway to make the minimum driving age 18 or even 21.”

Comment by Anonymous

As I say, the driving record of Europeans when I looked into it around 1960 was absolutely appallling, and the minimum driving age was 21. In Britain a person almost never got his license at the first test. One woman took it over a hundred times.

Meanwhile those mature and educated drivers slaughtered each other on the highways like dogs.

We were talking about my owrking in a prison. I do not like to give out exact dates in my life for reasons which, if I explained them, would involve saying in public precisely the information I am trying to keep back.

As I said, I got my driver’s license at age fourteen. I was offended by one line written on it:

“Driving is a privilege, not a right.”

I knew at that time, at age fourteen, that in a prison one had two rights: food and medical care.

Everything else in a prison was a “privilege.” Exercise time was a “privilege” in prison. A five-minute shower once a week was a “privilege.” Any outside-cell time was a “privilege,” including yard or pacing area behind lockdown cells. Work was a “privilege.”

I didn’t like the SMELL of that line on my driver’s license at age fourteen.

As always everybody laughed at me when I complained about this. Bob was being alarmist and paranoid again.

As always, my alarmism came true. There have been proposals to take licenses away from young people who don’t finish high school. Guess what the motto of that movement was?

“Driving is a privilege, not a right.”

As the fourteen-year-old alarmist Bob Whitaker SMELLED the first time he looked at his driver’s license, to call anything a “privilege” means that you can only do it at the pleasure of some power above you, like the warden over a prisoner.

If driving is a “privilege” it means that you could have your license taken away from you for hate speech.

In America the first amendment guarantees you that no RIGHT can be taken from you expressing your opinion.

But, by definition, any “privilege” can be taken from you at the whim of the authorites who GAVE you, out of the goodness of their hearts, that “privilege.”

To call having a driver’s license today a “privilege” is EXACTLY like telling a ninteenth-century American that riding a horse is “privilege” only the government can grant.

“Driving is a privilege, not a right” is a POISONOUS phrase.