From: mars1933@hotmail.com   
      
       A large majority of Jews have historically been strongly in favor   
   of a libertarian immigration policy for the White-majority countries   
   in which they choose to reside. That this attitude is generally not   
   extend-ed to the state of Israel is, naturally enough, a source of   
   consternation and ridicule among White nationalists.   
      
      MacDonald has examined this phenomenon extensively, regarding it as   
   a foundational tenet of almost all Jewish intellectual movements that   
   have historically emerged from Judaism as a group evolutionary   
   strategy.16 Interestingly, this rampant hypocrisy extends to the likes   
   of Friedman and Rand.   
      
     For instance Friedman's position with regard to immigration to the   
   US was that, providing that immigrants (from whatever racial or   
   cultural source) are entering the nation to take up employment, as   
   opposed to state welfare, there is no rational reason to oppose that   
   immigration. He was a strong supporter of the ethno-state of Israel,   
   and there is no record of him ever noticing Israel's   
   racially-restrictive immigration policy - much less decrying it. This   
   surely demonstrates that in such matters the ingroup moral criterion   
   of whether it was "good for the Jews" surpassed his universal   
   libertarian commitment to the supposed benefits of a free and open   
   immigration policy.   
      
      Ayn Rand demonstrated an even greater capacity for hypocrisy   
   with her attitude toward respective manifestations of White and Jew-   
   ish ethnocentrism. She declared that "there is no such thing as a col-   
   lective or racial achievement" and espoused the moral superiority of   
   her type of individualism which "regards man - every man - as an   
   independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to   
   his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being."18   
   For Rand, however, "every man" ostensibly did not include the Arabs in   
   their conflict with Israel. Instead she regarded the fight between   
   Israel and the Arabs as fight between civilized men and savages.   
      
      Appearing on Donahue in 1979 she declared that: "If you mean whose   
   side should you be on - Israel or the Arabs? I would certainly say   
   Israel because it's the advanced, technological, civilized country   
   amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages who have not   
   changed for years and who are racist and who resent Israel because   
   it's bringing industry and intelligence and modern technology into   
   their stagnation."19   
      
       So to what extent does the libertarian immigration agenda, advo-   
   cated with such patent inconsistency by the like of Friedman and   
   Rand, serve the interests of Whites in terms of immigration policy?   
   White racial nationalists generally do not have a problem with immi-   
   gration per se, but rather with non-White immigration that shifts the   
   demographic balance of power away from European-derived popula-   
   tions. Because of their strict individualism, libertarians dismiss the   
   importance of race in human affairs. This is reflected in the fact   
   that many of the most prominent libertarian theorists, endorse a   
   policy of non-discrimination with regard to immigration - although   
   this principal is rarely extended by Jewish libertarians to the state   
   of Israel.   
      
       The anthropological reality is, as Frank Salter observes, the   
   precise opposite of the individualist fantasy propagated by   
   libertarianism: that, until recent decades, almost all human societies   
   have sought, like Israel, to prevent permanent mass migration in their   
   own group evolutionary interests. Western societies since about 1965   
   have been the rare exceptions. Salter observes that:   
   Hunter-gatherers and primitive agriculturalists, farmers and   
   herders have all laid claim to a territory and fiercely defended it.   
   Marriage partners have been found almost exclusively within   
   the ethnic group, encompassing the local dialect. The psycholog-   
   ical motivations for this are well established in such predisposi-   
   tions as social identity mechanisms, collectivism, assortment by   
   similarity, innate cognition of human kinds, and rational choice.   
   Evolutionary origins of territoriality and ethnocentrism are indi-   
   cated by their being human universals as well as being found in   
   apes. And from the evolutionary perspective, which acknowl-   
   edges the limited carrying capacity of all territories and of the   
   world itself, it is maladaptive to allow one's lineage - family,   
   clan or ethnic group - to be replaced by others.   
      
   The vital interest all societies have in controlling a territory also   
   falsified the assertion that national security consists solely of de-   
   fending individual citizens from attack, for example by vetting   
   immigrants for terrorist connections, as is already the practice   
   with tourists. Unlike tourists, immigrants affect the receiving   
   country's numbers, identity and cohesion. Societies thus have a   
   corporate interest in retaining national sovereignty, which en-   
   tails control of a territory. This helps to explain the historical   
   pattern of corporate liberty being put before citizens' rights.   
      
    Inviting the world to a country as prosperous as Australia would   
   result in the displacement of the Australian people inside their   
   historical homeland. This is an outcome even more maladaptive than   
   enslavement because it would be permanent.20   
      
       Thus, it is this very libertarian individualist agenda favoring   
   the free global movement of people, in conjunction with the openly   
   anti-White and anti-Western agendas of the cultural Marxists that have   
   facilitated the demographic transformation of Western nations in the   
   past few decades. Because of their denial of the significance of race,   
   libertarians are never going to be allies in the fight to save White   
   populations from demographic and political eclipse. The growth in   
   popularity of libertarian ideas among Whites is as likely to undermine   
   White racial solidarity as effectively as any of the more openly anti-   
   White nostrums of the left. As White racial nationalists and activists   
   we urgently need to convey to patriotic White libertarians that racial   
   collectivism is the only effective means to promote our group   
   interests now and into the future. It is lesson that was learned many   
   centuries ago by those that have worked tirelessly to promote their   
   own group evolutionary interests at our expense - with Judaism being   
   the classic example.   
      
      
   www.tomatobubble.com  www.ihr.org   http://nationalvanguard.org   
      
   http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)