[Bret L]

(( I really like Sam Dickson's writing. Bret.))

"Consider also the issue of private property. During the time when
Australia had an immigration policy designed to maintain its identity
as a white and British nation, one of the largest groups that fought
it
were Anglo-Saxon farmers with large plantations. They didn’t want to
have to hire free British immigrants. They wanted cheap labor. They
wanted Chinese coolies who would work for less. Do we really want to
respect that kind of private property right?

To save our people, it will be necessary not merely to change those
who hold public power but also those who hold private power. A vast
share of the nation’s wealth is held by our enemies. They are
particularly
heavily invested in the news and entertainment media. That has to
change. But it cannot change except by the dramatic use of public
power to change who holds private power.

Imagine that by some fluke a libertarian like Ron Paul were elected
president. Imagine that he really could bring American troops home
from Iraq and Afghanistan, block the drive for war with Iran, and end
Israel’s ability to loot our treasury and control our foreign policy.
Private money and private media power would immediately be used
to thwart his policies. He would be lucky to avoid impeachment or
assassination.

And, as a libertarian, his own principles would prevent
him from doing anything about it. After all, his enemies have freedom
of speech and the right to use their money however they wish.
In England when the Wars of the Roses were concluded by the battle
of Boswell Field, when Richard III was defeated by Henry VII and
the Tudor dynasty was established, what was the first order of
business?
To take the lands and titles of the aristocratic families who had
backed the losing side, and to give them to the able and devoted
servants
of the winner. Henry VII understood that if his enemies retained
their estates and could still call their tenants out against him, the
civil
wars that had wracked England would soon begin again.

If Henry VII had followed the advice of a Ron Paul or an Ayn Rand,
he would have failed.

So will we.

Jews have a much more supple and realistic attitude toward abstract
principles. A few months ago, a Jew published an article in which he
said, quite brazenly, that when Jewish survival is at stake, abstract
moral principles must be set aside. In my circles, much to my
disappointment,
this was met with a great deal of clucking about how bad
the Jews are.

Quite the contrary. It shows how wise the Jews are. The survival of
their people should be more important to them than abstract moral
principles."

http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.co...8n3Dickson.pdf