How Much Power to the State?

[Moody]

"Anarchism is no means to racial preservation".
[Bill, 2003]

There is a growing call for a 'limited State' on the grounds of 'absolute liberty' ...
... even to the point of announcing a kind of 'anarcho-capitalism' ...

A calling for as "little State as possible" ...

..."possible"? - ah, there's the rub!

A feeling is abroad that the Powerful State is somehow 'unwelcome' ...

However, I say the opposite to all this, I say that we need a Strong State just as we need a Strong Will.

My friends, look how Transnational Corporations [TNCs] stalk the Globe, possessing more power than a small to average State!
These TNCs and their Neoconservative political puppets LOVE to prey on small, weak States - because they can do with them just as they will.

And yet we hear, do we not, even from racial preservationists, who, while being agreed that there are terrible abuses in Liberal Societies, yet they opine that the State has no 'right' to intervene in a Big Way to stop them ...

This is perverse, as the Strong State is the best Weapon that we can have in today's apolitical culture.

To illustrate, ask yourself; does the State have the Right to prevent/and or strictly control Immigration?
Does it?
Even more, does the State have the Right to regulate/eugenicise its population?
Of course it has those Rights!

And yet, how can these Great Things be achieved WITHOUT a Strong State?

What's the use in promoting racial preservation when your society has a Liberal Open-Door Immigration Policy and is also unable to prevent abortion and is unable to remove poisonous individuals from its gene-pool?
All because you demand as "little State as possible" ...

Such liberalism/libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is RACIAL Suicide.

This is why we must favour Powerful States who are autonomous, independent and self-sufficient.

Only then do you have the MACHINERY to achieve your Racial and Ethnic and Cultural goals, both within and without.

[Siegfried]

To illustrate, ask yourself; does the State have the Right to prevent/and or strictly control Immigration?
Does it?
Even more, does the State have the Right to regulate/eugenicise its population?
Of course it has those Rights!

And yet, how can these Great Things be achieved WITHOUT a Strong State?

Anarchist communities can very well decide not to accept foreigners. Of course no laws about it will be made, but group pressure, tradition, etc may keep such agreements intact.

As for eugenics, in an Anarchist society, embryo selection, genetic manipulation, etc would be legal (though group pressure, tradition, etc may exclude certain forms of it), which means such a community may very well develop a positive breeding pattern.

As for the corporations, these would only exist in an Anarcho-Capitalist world, not in a National-Anarchist or orthodox Anarchist world.

Anarchism: anti-authoritarian socialism.
National-Anarchism: Stateless nationalist socialism. Possibly with authoritarian figures, some NA's even desire a monarchy.

Just to get things clear: I'm not an orthodox Anarchist myself, I just felt your arguments weren't very strong.

[Moody]

=Siegfried] "Anarchist communities can very well decide not to accept foreigners. Of course no laws about it will be made, but group pressure, tradition, etc may keep such agreements intact".

In theory, but not in practice. Anarchism may have seemed viable in the 1700s when Goodwin was writing, but as I have shown, the forces of industrialisation, technocracy, multiculturalism and globalism sweep aside such theoretical anarchistic imagined-communities.
Of course it was Franco who, by destroying the Spanish Anarchists, brought to an end Internationalist Anarchism, just as Mussolini and Hitler put an end to Anarchism in their own countries.
This caused Anarchism to flourish in the USA, linking up with the New Left - Anarchism has always been on the Left, historically.
So I have history as my proof; racial preservation can never be achieved by Anarchism - indeed, Anarchism is antithetical to it.
I also have the present political situation as my witness - only big powerful States can resist the Multinationals.

"As for eugenics, in an Anarchist society, embryo selection, genetic manipulation, etc would be legal (though group pressure, tradition, etc may exclude certain forms of it), which means such a community may very well develop a positive breeding pattern".

Anarchists place ultimate and absolute Liberty at the top of their agenda; they would regard Eugenics as "Evil Nazism" - are you really an Anarchist?

"As for the corporations, these would only exist in an Anarcho-Capitalist world, not in a National-Anarchist or orthodox Anarchist world".

National/Anarchist is a contradiction in terms - the Anarchist is AGAINST government/statism; all Anarchists REPUDIATE Nationalism!

"Anarchism: anti-authoritarian socialism.
National-Anarchism: Stateless nationalist socialism. Possibly with authoritarian figures, some NA's even desire a monarchy".

A whole bunch of contradictions; Mon-archy means 'one-ruler'; An-archy means 'no-ruler'; these things are incompatible.
It is only the failure of Anarchism that has led to these opportunistic hybrid theories which are not worth the paper they are writen on [theoretical race-mixing in -isms?].

"Just to get things clear: I'm not an orthodox Anarchist myself, I just felt your arguments weren't very strong".

'Orthodox' Anarchist! Oh the Oxymorons around this issue.
My argument is this; the Racial State must needs be a Strong State.
Anarchism can never serve the Race; Anarchism has persistently failed.
Anarchism is now - as you have shown - the Great Whore of politics, allying itself to every other -ism.
Strong Arguments for a Strong State.

[Siegfried]

In theory, but not in practice. Anarchism may have seemed viable in the 1700s when Goodwin was writing, but as I have shown, the forces of industrialisation, technocracy, multiculturalism and globalism sweep aside such theoretical anarchistic imagined-communities.

Maybe, maybe not. I haven't entirely made up my mind yet, but I think small anarchistic communities might be viable, even in a globalised world. Perhaps they will not be independent in the sense that they will need to import a lot of goods and food, but they might still work.

This caused Anarchism to flourish in the USA, linking up with the New Left - Anarchism has always been on the Left, historically.

In the past, yes. Though Anarcho-Capitalism and National-Anarchism can hardly be accepted as 'left-wing'.

Anarchists place ultimate and absolute Liberty at the top of their agenda; they would regard Eugenics as "Evil Nazism"

Only if you narrow Eugenics down to forced sterilisation and the like. Embryo Selection and Genetic Manipulation are in no way dangerous to the liberty of individuals, as long as the State does not have a monopoly on them.

are you really an Anarchist?

No, I'm not. I think I'm closer to fascism than to anarchism, though I do not like the idea of a vast, extremely centralised State (for example, a centralised European superstate); I prefer some kind of pan-European alliance of relatively small states, modelled around an organic National-Socialism (stripped of its germanocentric ideas, substituting eurocentrism for those). Yet I am not really a neo-nazi either, as my conception of organic National-Socialism differs on a number of points from Hitlerism (free speech, for example).

National/Anarchist is a contradiction in terms - the Anarchist is AGAINST government/statism; all Anarchists REPUDIATE Nationalism!

The State does not equal the Nation/People/Folk. The State is the political configuration of the Nation/People/Folk. Anarchism is compatible with organic nationalism, as National-Anarchism shows. National-Anarchism online: Terra Firma , Synthesis and Michael's Writings .

A whole bunch of contradictions; Mon-archy means 'one-ruler'; An-archy means 'no-ruler'; these things are incompatible.

National-Anarchist monarchists want to abolish bureaucratic State structures and wish to create tiny communities with a ruler who is very close to the people. They wish to abolish laws, not necessarily the authority of individuals.

[edit: that monarchist and anarchist might be contradictory if you look at them from a purely linguistic perspective, is actually irrelevant. What's in a name? It's the content that matters.]

'Orthodox' Anarchist! Oh the Oxymorons around this issue.

With 'orthodox' I meant Anarchist in the sense of the anarcho-communists, like Kropotkin. National-Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism are 'unorthodox' varieties of Anarchism.

[Sigrun Christianson]

There is a growing call for a 'limited State' on the grounds of 'absolute liberty' ...

I think I am the only one here calling for that.

... even to the point of announcing a kind of 'anarcho-capitalism' ...

That wasn't me. I don't even know what that is, but it sounds interesting.

..."possible"? - ah, there's the rub!

Yeah, possible. Obviously, we can't have total anarchy or how would we initiate immigration controls and topple authoritarian, power-hungry, single-minded jerks who claw their way to the top of the power structure?

A feeling is abroad that the Powerful State is somehow 'unwelcome' ...

It certainly is in my home, I don't know about anyone else.

However, I say the opposite to all this, I say that we need a Strong State just as we need a Strong Will.

If "we" had a stong will, "we" wouldn't need a strong state. Strong states are formed on top of populations with weak wills.

My friends, look how Transnational Corporations [TNCs] stalk the Globe, possessing more power than a small to average State! These TNCs and their Neoconservative political puppets LOVE to prey on small, weak States - because they can do with them just as they will.

It is the State that allows your TNCs to rape & exploit as they do.

And yet we hear, do we not, even from racial preservationists, who, while being agreed that there are terrible abuses in Liberal Societies, yet they opine that the State has no 'right' to intervene in a Big Way to stop them ...

There are terrible abuses in every society, liberal or otherwise. Terrible abuses won't decrease under a strong centralized State government, they will just change shape and direction and be less easy to spot. That is the condition of humans, not just liberal States. Exorcise depravity and authoritarian desires and those abuses will recede. It has been my personal experience, with some research to back me up, that people who seek & desire power over others are usually the last ones who should ever be in power because of their too numerous & dangerous character & personality flaws.

This is perverse, as the Strong State is the best Weapon that we can have in today's apolitical culture.

I believe that a strong people is the answer. A strong people allowed and encouraged to think for themselves living within [not under] a government with zero "official" or "approved" dogmas.

To illustrate, ask yourself; does the State have the Right to prevent/and or strictly control Immigration?
Does it?

Yes.

Even more, does the State have the Right to regulate/eugenicise its population?

Regulate and eugenicize are not the same.

Of course it has those Rights!

It [the State] has only those powers [not rights] afforded it by the people [the State]. lol

And yet, how can these Great Things be achieved WITHOUT a Strong State?

Easily.

What's the use in promoting racial preservation when your society has a Liberal Open-Door Immigration Policy and is also unable to prevent abortion and is unable to remove poisonous individuals from its gene-pool?
All because you demand as "little State as possible" ...

That is precisely the time when promoting racial preseveration is the most critical. Promoting racial preservation in a homogenous society is all well & good, but since the society is already homogenous.. kinda like preaching to the choir, don't you think?

Such liberalism/libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is RACIAL Suicide.

Fascism is suicide in all forms.

This is why we must favour Powerful States who are autonomous, independent and self-sufficient.

Sounds good.

Only then do you have the MACHINERY to achieve your Racial and Ethnic and Cultural goals, both within and without.

I disagree that there is only one way.

[Greg Rowe]

[SIZE=7][FONT=Book Antiqua]
The state is an artificial entity. Originally Nation, in its Latin roots inferred common genetic composition of persons living in a definable geographic area with shared culture. The modern states are the relics of empires built by subjugating disparate racial, lingual, or cultural groups into one unit for the additional tax revenue that this provided to a bloated, spendthrift nobility. Even after the monarchy-form of government waned, the Soviet, American, British, and French bureaucracies acted in the same manner: the state became increasingly powerful and government has become increasinly centralized.
Freedom would necessarily mean decentralization and local participation in political decision-making. The large, centralized state becomes necessarily draconian as it seeks to find a "common" culture to impose equally upon the Basque and Breton, the Catalan and Andalusian, the Germanic Minnesotan and the Hispanic Arizonan. In order to impose a common order, local customs must be suborned, a common language, culture, and state religion imposed. It has certainly happened in the United States, where we are "free" in name only. Under the most recent Patriot Act, the Department of Fatherland Security can go to my local library and review what web pages I visited and what books I've read! IN order to impose a unified national ideal upon a polyglot populace, one must create an external enemy (the U.S. is always at war) and suppress freedom in every guise. After all, if people were free to make decisions at a local level amongst their own ethnic peers, the first thing they would do is to withdraw from the nation, or subscribe only for limited needs, such as trade agreements with other independent states and common defense. Such in fact was the original ideal of Jeffersonian democracy in the U.S. For a view of a decentralized society with real freedom (and a projection of current trends into their logical conclusions as liberty continues to shrink, read: http://www.geocities.com/gambanreidi.geo/Device.html .

[Siegfried]

Fascism is suicide in all forms.

Could you elaborate on that?

[Jack]

Response to Moody's first post

"Anarchism is no means to racial preservation".
[Bill, 2003]

Under Anarchism, welfare states, which is what makes Magna Europa so attractive as a future home to racial foreigners, would be impossible.

A calling for as "little State as possible" ...

*Raises hand*

A feeling is abroad that the Powerful State is somehow 'unwelcome' ...

I proudly count myself as one of those who adhere to that 'feeling'. Tell me Moody, do you consider self reliance and independence virtues? I do.

My friends, look how Transnational Corporations [TNCs] stalk the Globe, possessing more power than a small to average State!

Moody reveals himself to be a Maoist.

The average State is a third world tinpot dictatorship run by a greedly, arrogant negro who will quite willingly accept a few million to line his wallet so he'll have motivation to let his people be sent to sweatshops. In addition to that, most of those third world populations are dirt poor and *gasp!* - want the wages. The reason TNC's run to third world countries is because taxes are so high in first world countries to support the mass immigration of racial foreigners.

These TNCs and their Neoconservative political puppets LOVE to prey on small, weak States - because they can do with them just as they will.

Moody provides evidence that he is a Maoist.

The USSR loved to pray on small States too. I don't recall it being a TNC or a Neoconservative puppt. Remember Afghanistan?

And yet we hear, do we not, even from racial preservationists, who, while being agreed that there are terrible abuses in Liberal Societies, yet they opine that the State has no 'right' to intervene in a Big Way to stop them ...

You forget that the State intervening in the first place is what brought around the current conditions. The State causes these problems. States have shown a remarkable tendency over time to increase their own power. Humility before State power is a Chinese virtue. I have no desire to turn Magna Europa into an Empire of Chinamen.

This is perverse, as the Strong State is the best Weapon that we can have in today's apolitical culture.

ROFL. Sounds sorta like the 'temporary' dictatorship of the proletariat to me.

To illustrate, ask yourself; does the State have the Right to prevent/and or strictly control Immigration?
Does it?

The State is what makes mass racial immigration possible. No, I don't believe it has any rights whatsoever.

Even more, does the State have the Right to regulate/eugenicise its population?
Of course it has those Rights!

What is a 'Right' Moody? NO, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO DO THAT. If the State DARED to make a move to sterilise my brother [who has a learning deficiency] I'd fight back with whatever means I had. I happen to admire the Founding Fathers of the US.

And yet, how can these Great Things be achieved WITHOUT a Strong State?

Ok. Racial immigration would be effectively cut off as soon as the welfare state collapsed. And when it did, racial foreigners would either starve or earn their keep - and that's if they'd get jobs in a country where people are forced to hire racial foreigners through State legislation and political correctness. And if they try riots - no State will be there stop you from defending yourself, your property and your kin by whatever means you judge nessecary. Keep an open mind.

Such liberalism/libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is RACIAL Suicide.

You know NOTHING of what you are talking about.

Only then do you have the MACHINERY to achieve your Racial and Ethnic and Cultural goals, both within and without.

I don't want to control the lives of others. I'm inclined to view people with extreme totalitarian tendencies as mentally unstable.

Response to Moody's second post

Siegfried Augustus; "Anarchist communities can very well decide not to accept foreigners. Of course no laws about it will be made, but group pressure, tradition, etc may keep such agreements intact".

Moody; In theory, but not in practice. Anarchism may have seemed viable in the 1700s when Goodwin was writing, but as I have shown, the forces of industrialisation, technocracy, multiculturalism and globalism sweep aside such theoretical anarchistic imagined-communities.
Of course it was Franco who, by destroying the Spanish Anarchists, brought to an end Internationalist Anarchism, just as Mussolini and Hitler put an end to Anarchism in their own countries.
This caused Anarchism to flourish in the USA, linking up with the New Left - Anarchism has always been on the Left, historically.
So I have history as my proof; racial preservation can never be achieved by Anarchism - indeed, Anarchism is antithetical to it.
I also have the present political situation as my witness - only big powerful States can resist the Multinationals.

The New Left is one of the strongest proponents of the State in America. Want to know why? For the same reason there needed to be civil rights legislation and Supreme Court decisions to implement integration. Because the American [white] People would not have chosen to do it. Oh, do tell me how the rise of Statism has led directly to racial integration.

Siegfried; "As for eugenics, in an Anarchist society, embryo selection, genetic manipulation, etc would be legal (though group pressure, tradition, etc may exclude certain forms of it), which means such a community may very well develop a positive breeding pattern".

Moody Lawless; Anarchists place ultimate and absolute Liberty at the top of their agenda; they would regard Eugenics as "Evil Nazism" - are you really an Anarchist?

Voluntary eugenics is not an oxymoron. Oh, and if you ever tried to sterilise my brother, who has a learning disability, I would kill you.

Siegfried; "As for the corporations, these would only exist in an Anarcho-Capitalist world, not in a National-Anarchist or orthodox Anarchist world".

Moody; National/Anarchist is a contradiction in terms - the Anarchist is AGAINST government/statism; all Anarchists REPUDIATE Nationalism!

Oooo.... provide evidence that ethnic populism is inseperable from Statism.

Siegfried; "Just to get things clear: I'm not an orthodox Anarchist myself, I just felt your arguments weren't very strong".

Moody; 'Orthodox' Anarchist! Oh the Oxymorons around this issue.
My argument is this; the Racial State must needs [sic] be a Strong State.
Anarchism can never serve the Race; Anarchism has persistently failed.
Anarchism is now - as you have shown - the Great Whore of politics, allying itself to every other -ism.
Strong Arguments for a Strong State.

Anarchism has not 'consistently failed'. Also, about a 'Strong State' - the Chinese have a tendency to bend over to every strong dictator/emporer that's ever stood on Chinese soil. Methinks Moody wants to turn Europe into an Empire of moral Chinamen.

[Moody]

"I think I'm closer to fascism than to anarchism, though I do not like the idea of a vast, extremely centralised State (for example, a centralised European superstate); I prefer some kind of pan-European alliance of relatively small states, modelled around an organic National-Socialism (stripped of its germanocentric ideas, substituting eurocentrism for those). Yet I am not really a neo-nazi either, as my conception of organic National-Socialism differs on a number of points from Hitlerism (free speech, for example)".

I think you make some good points there.
It is more a case of looking at fascism/national socialism and bringing them up to the present, as Dr Solar Wolf says elsewhere on this forum.
I am though, dubious about ABSOLUTE concepts of 'freedom'; free-speech must always be limited, as we know to our own cost today.
However, I believe that restrictions on free-speech based solely on the protection of race and nation is perfectly reasonable.
A European Nation will need to be decentralised at the level of its regional/subracial locales, most certainly. But there are some things which must be done at the Mega-level, so to speak, in order to work [i.e., control of immigration, defence etc.,].
I envisage the European Nation as a catalyst for dissolving many of the artificial units within Europe, which are the residue to obsolete monarchies etc.,, while RE-vitalisng many of the regional/subracial realities which are currently masked.

"National-Anarchist monarchists want to abolish bureaucratic State structures and wish to create tiny communities with a ruler who is very close to the people. They wish to abolish laws, not necessarily the authority of individuals.
That monarchist and anarchist might be contradictory if you look at them from a purely linguistic perspective, is actually irrelevant. What's in a name? It's the content that matters".

I enjoy some of those Nat/Anarch ideas from a theoretical point of view; but I wonder whether they are more than just interesting thought-experiments; all too obvious attempts at 'syntheses'?
In such lines of argument, the build up of contradictions renders the overall concept impracticable.

"With 'orthodox' I meant Anarchist in the sense of the anarcho-communists, like Kropotkin".

It seems that Kropotkin made the theoretical mistake in his 'Mutual Aid' of thinking that small tribal societies were anarchistic, as you also aver. He ignored the great Ruling Power invested in taboo and obligation.
'Freedom' means nothing to such tribes.

[Moody]

" ... we can't have total anarchy ..."

Agreed. But I go further; 'Order' is the supreme means towards the end of the ascending Racial Nation.

"It is the State that allows your TNCs to rape & exploit as they do.
There are terrible abuses in every society, liberal and otherwise".

No, it is the CAPTALIST State that allows that.
A State based on Racial Nationalism [RN] will also, I admit, have its own abuses. But they will be of a different order to those we see in the Captalist/Neoliberal State.
True, the RN State will not give human rights to EVERYONE.
True, the RNS will no doubt treat troublesome aliens less than humanely.
The NRS will no doubt deport them or even Execute them.
The NRS may even deny women's rights, deny homesexual rights; it may even take a eugenic approach and demand that women produce more off-spring and select those of a better quality, while despatching the ill-born.
The RNS may have a Military ethos running throughout it, and have little time for the poor suffering souls.
But all those 'abuses' will based on one thing - the preservation and furtherance of Race and Nation.
That is the difference.
When a people DEMAND this, they Will the means to that end.
They Will strong Leaders, and that art of Leadership, whose master-piece is the STRONG STATE.