First take the thorn from your own eye.

This country is in economic collapse. The borders are open and free to cross for every terrorist willing to pay the 500.00 to a coyote to get them to Phoenix.
The Mexican cartels waltz into Tucson and Phoenix wearing official police uniforms, hold up drop houses and kill innocent people……. and what does this administration do?
They investigate the only person in Law enforcement that has the guts to do his job in Arizona….
PEOPLE .. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

But back to the point of the first sentence of the preceding paragraph (and I’ll put it in all caps so as to increase it not going beneath your attention – notice I say attention, having no hopes that you will ‘understand’): IF THE PARADIGM WITH WHICH YOU ANALYSE DATA IS FAULTY (in this case “libertarianism”) THEN YOU WILL NOT ANALYSE SAID DATA ACCURATLY! Your paradigm is flawed, so your “analysis” of the “Tea Parties” is also flawed.

I mean, it has been pointed out, and with accuracy, that the “Tea Parties” are LILLY WHITE. And THAT IS REALLY WHAT HAS PEOPLE FREAKED OUT. However, in your ‘mental’ punyverse, all that is just a COINCIDENCE.

In any case, I’m not here to talk about the endangered species that is European Man. Good day to you, sir, and good luck with your race baiting

Contra the politically useful myth surrounding Churchill: Churchill was a dyed in the wool White supremacist, and above all a Anglo-Saxon supremacist who wanted to “keep England White.” Churchill only assented to the Morgenthau Plan for Germany’s deindustrialization (a plan that by some estimates would have resulted in the starvation of half of the German population) because arm was twisted at the prospect of being denied Lend-Lease if he did not so assent. The leakage of the existence of the Morgenthau Plan very well could have been responsible for the German people fighting on to the bitter end, and with that hanging over them, they had every right, every reason, and every duty to do so. It is true, Himmler’s SS perpetrated heinous crimes, but it is alleged by no mainstream historian that the German people were collectively implicated. Yet the German people were held collectively guilty. That is not a standard (the standard of collective guilt) I suspect some would wish to see applied across the board, as the massive disproportionate involvement of their group members in the crimes of Bolshevism are but an open secret.

What is more, Stalin well planned to invade Western Europe, and we can very reasonably surmise what the outcome of that would have been, the transformation of Western Europe into one giant Katyn mass grave. The decapitation of the genepools of peoples, that was the Bolshevik method, no? Yes. And their subsequent replacement by Stalin of their leadership class with that of ethnically alien commissars who would experience no pangs of loyalty to those peoples. You hear deny the call of the blood? Not even Stalin, despite his ostensible ideological appointments, bought that. In 1932-33 possibly as many as 10 million Ukrainians were slaughtered by under the watch of Kaganovitch and Yagoda (hint: these men were not Ukrainians, nor Russians). It was not uncommon for parents of small children to be driven past the point of human endurance as a result of the engineered famine, and in a fit of insanity, kill and eat their own children. This happened but a few hundred miles from Germany’s eastern border. Western Europe was only spared as the Wehrmacht stepped into the breach.

Our people have a right to exist, a right to the necessary conditions to sustain that existence, and a right to the truth about themselves. Those that would deny us that are self-evidently our enemies.

You have such a big target painted on your chest I just can’t resist taking a shot.

The words of Ayn Rand:

“The respectable family that supports worthless relatives or covers up their crimes in order to “protect the family name” (as if the moral stature of one man could be damaged by the actions of another) — the bum who boasts that his great-grandfather was an empire-builder, or the small-town spinster who boasts that her maternal great-uncle was a state senator and her third cousin gave a concert at Carnegie Hall (as if the achievements of one man could rub off on the mediocrity of another) — the parents who search genealogical trees in order to evaluate their prospective sons-in-law — the celebrity who starts his autobiography with a detailed account of his family history — all these are samples of racism, the atavistic manifestations of a doctrine whose full expression is the tribal warfare of prehistorical savages, the wholesale slaughter of Nazi Germany, the atrocities of today’s so-called “newly emerging nations.””

But then:

“The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.”

The words of Murray Rothbard:

“[T]he Randian movement was strictly hierarchical. At the top of the pyramid, of course, was Rand herself, the Ultimate Decider of all questions. Branden, her designated ‘intellectual heir,’ and the St. Paul of the movement, was Number 2. Third in rank was the top circle, the original disciples, those who had been converted before the publication of Atlas. Since they were converted by reading her previous novel, The Fountainhead, which had been published 1943, the top circle was designated in the movement as ‘the class of ‘43.’ But there was an unofficial designation that was far more revealing: ‘the senior collective.’ . . . Strengthening the ties within the senior collective was the fact that each and every one of them was related to each other, all being part of one Canadian Jewish family, relatives of either Nathan or Barbara Branden. There was, for example, Nathan’s sister Elaine Kalberman; his brother-in-law, Harry Kalberman; his first cousin, Dr. Allan Blumenthal, who assumed the mantle of leading Objectivist Psychotherapist after Branden’s expulsion; Barbara’s first cousin, Leonard Peikoff; and Joan Mitchell, wife of Allan Blumenthal. Alan Greenspan’s familial relation was more tenuous, being the former husband of Joan Mitchell. The only non-relative in the class of ‘43 was Mary Ann Rukovina, who made the top rank after being the college roommate of Joan Mitchell.”

You say: “As a matter of fact, it’s our rampant individualism that unites us.”

Well that ain’t much. Screw Ayn Rand.

No wonder advocacy for our peoplehood is frozen out of MSM via the tact of “dynamic silence,” as the affirmation of our peoplehood threatens powerful interests, and we win our arguments – every time.

The point of the “American experiment” as you put it, was to secure ordered, republican-style liberty for those of European descent.

I refer you to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

And to Jefferson:

“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers.”

“Because all throughout history, from the conquest of Canaan to the gas chambers of Auschwitz to the machetes of Rwanda, racial identity has brought nothing but misery and death wherever it has gone.”

A racial “identity” is nothing but that of perceiving what one is. Racial/ethnic affinity is nothing but familial affinity extended. Any criticisms you would make of the affirmation of one’s racial/ethnic group is applicable to the affirmation of one’s family. Your ideological appointments render you incapable of interfacing with these issues in a way that is not, well, disturbingly consistent with Marxism. And your characterization for the love and loyalty one naturally and rightly has for his own is a anti-human travesty.

As for the rest of you, I’d just like to remind you that you shouldn’t assume that the Tea Baggers are all the same. As a matter of fact, it’s our rampant individualism that unites us. For instance, at all the rallies I’ve attended I’ve met maybe one or two people that were adamantly against the Afghanistan incursion from the very outset, like myself. But let’s not hold it against those who would learn from their mistakes. At the same time someone mentioned the “Tea Party” has no platform or foreign policy. This isn’t true, at least to me. I believe pulling out of all our foreign bases and redistributing those military resources in the domestic US would be a great policy. If anyone lives near a small military base you know all about the BRAC decisions that put entire communities at wit’s end every 3-4 years. Why are foreign bases never discussed when the military and Congress get together for Base Realignment and Closure? I’ve never understood conservatives that believe the federal government is naturally incompetent when dealing with domestic issues(it is) but for some reason is all-knowing and all-powerful when dealing with foreign issues. We don’t trust the government to provide American citizens with health care so why, by God, should we trust it to pacify Afghanistan? In any case my point is that me and my fellow Teabaggers probably have less in common than we have differences. But it’s what we have in common despite those differences that make us a force: Love of liberty, personal responsibility, and self-determination.

I’m glad you recognize you’ve been conducting a “shadow monologue”. Frankly, I’m shocked that no one’s taken you to task yet – perhaps all the liberals and conservatives are too busy calling each other racists to know what to do when a real one shows up. Perhaps they just don’t want to feed a troll. In any case, I’ll take you on.

You came first to this site with a tangential-at-best post regarding innate differences in intelligence and ability between people of different races. You were, of course, polite and well-spoken in defense of your White America, and careful to distance yourself from the charges of anti-Semitism which you knew would follow. You established your philosophical bona fides regarding Strauss, and Drury, and even a bit of Burke for good measure. Clearly you are a man of reading and intelligence. I wonder, then, how you were led so far astray to have missed so completely the point of the American experiment.

The American is not a believer in the “blood”. He is unconcerned with “European (or African, or Asian, or what-have-you) Man”. The American abhors “volkish nationalism”. Do you know why? Because all throughout history, from the conquest of Canaan to the gas chambers of Auschwitz to the machetes of Rwanda, racial identity has brought nothing but misery and death wherever it has gone. Without even dealing with the tricky subject of who qualifies as “white” (and yes, “miscegenation” does make that a rather tough question, doesn’t it), I ask you, what makes an American? Is it his ancestral stock? The color of his skin? Or is it his allegiance, the land he calls home?

The American is tied to the soil, all right, but not the soil of a narrow swath of northwestern Europe. The American is tied to the soil of a new continent, with a polity that sees individuals as fundamental units with rights and responsibilities, not mere heads to be counted in a racial amalgamation stretching back to time immemorial. I am a white man with ancestors from Ireland, Italy, England, and France. And I have no use for hyphenated Americans, be they Mexican- or African- or Chinese- or Arab- or even European-.

The kicker is that you may very well be right about fundamental differences, in aggregate, between races. I submit that it doesn’t matter. When a person is born or moves to this country, his previous identity is severed. Yes, he may keep his culture or traditions, but his primary allegiance is to a new nation, a nation whose genius is its ability to take the best of cultures from around the globe and weave them into a national fabric richer than any of its constituent parts. The men and ideas who founded this nation were products of the European Enlightenment, and your ancestors and mine labored long and hard to fashion a civilization out of whole cloth. But it is a small America indeed which would conspire to keep the fruits of freedom among a particular race because of historical happenstance. My America is bigger than that. My America is the America which says that in the eyes of God and the law “all men are created equal”.

It would, of course, be foolish to suggest that the country I have just described really exists, now or at any time in the past. Many of the Founders owned other men themselves, men who were not freed until a bloody paroxysm of civil war. There are still people alive who remember a time when a woman’s opinion was politically insignificant. And until the immigration reforms of the last century, to which you refer derisively, most people around the world were given no opportunity to partake in and contribute to American bounty.

So what?

The failure of America to live up to its ideals is not an indictment of the ideals themselves, but merely a spur to us now, a reminder that we the people, no less than the pioneers of previous eras, have not yet finished the work before us. Your presence here is proof of that. You come to this site offering racial kampf and misery and inequality and war. I reject that. Race is history, not destiny, and nowhere is this more true than in the United States of America. I weep for you, CaptainChaos, because a world filled with unthinking ignorance has lost your bright mind to a venomous racism of a kind thankfully not often seen anymore. And as long as you espouse it, you are contemptible. Beneath contempt – pitiable. So when you slither back to Stormfront, keep this is mind: so long as you value European Man over American Man, in all his colors and ancestries, you have betrayed America. You are a more insidious threat that any Mexican sneaking over a fence, because you work from inside, poisoning the ideal to which we aspire – a nation built on ideas, not people; a nation of laws, not men. Count yourself a proud member of the White Race, but while you are pledging allegiance to your skin instead of your home, do not dare defile the name by calling yourself an American.