Communism worse than Nazism

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/the-muslim-world-needs-conversion-not-understanding

Catholic priests do molest children far less than high school teachers (and
fathers, stepfathers, grandfathers, stepgrandfathers, and mothers’
boyfriends, and doctors, and counselors, and EVERYBODY ELSE). It is indeed
like saying that: in both cases, singling out certain groups to condemn
behavior that they do LESS than other groups (especially less than the
groups doing the condemning) is both bigotry and hypocrisy.

The eighth of a billion people that Communism (and Nazism) killed was in
deliberate famines, death camps, gulags, and by purges—not on
battlefields. If we throw in their war-dead—the Soviet Army was the most
murderous in human history, far worse even than the Nazis (and it also raped
well over a million women, not only in Axis countries but in countries it
was “liberating”)—they killed an even FIFTH of a billion, and if we add in
all the abortions in those countries the number reaches over THREE QUARTERS
of a billion (Russia and China have both had hundreds of millions of
abortions since Communism took over).

Comment: This is more or less the ideology I was raised in. However, as capitalism has apparently won, the thirty million starvation deaths and the fifty million abortions each year, must be attributed to capitalism.

Pedophilia apology 33 years ago: withdrawal of candidacy to German Parliament.

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/child-sex/pedophilia-apology-33-years-ago-withdrawal-of-candidacy-to-german-parliament

Pedophilia apology, 33 years ago, prompts Dagmar Döring to withdraw her candidacy to the German parliament for the Liberal FDP party.

• read: Pedophilia everywhere, in 1970ies Europe. Green Party Daniel Cohn Bendit’s quagmire | Human-Stupidity

 

The texts were discovered by researcher Franz Walter, hired by the German Green Party to research their own party’s involvement in efforts to decriminalize child sexuality.

• Missbrauchsdebatte bei Grünen: Parteienforscher Walter soll Pädophilie-Vorwürfe aufklären
• Paedophilia and the radical left of ’68: “the unpardonable sin — in churches, politics and in just about every walk of life — has been paedophilia.“
• Daniel Cohn-Bendit and the 1968 Revolution: Paedophilia as Part of their Political Agenda

40 years ago, the child sex trauma myth and Voodoo theory had not yet become the religious dogma (Disclaimer). The Rind study had not yet been unanimously condemned by the US Congress and Senate. A decent percentage of Germans practiced nudism at most beaches, rivers. So nudes of all ages could be readily seen during summer. Legal Dutch hardcore porn employed 15 and 16 year old actresses engaging in sex acts. British newspapers had topless 15 and 16 year old page 3 girls.

Dagmar Döhring went beyond Daniel Cohn Bendit. He described how he behaved passively when anti-authoritarian children opened his fly and played with him.

Dagmar Döring stated how she could be only satisfied by a long relation with a girl. Her boy friend had a relation with  13 year old boy that was cruelly ended after it was discovered. Dagmar Döring wrote how she would fight all these unjust cruel laws that criminalized such behavior.

• Pädophilie-Vorwürfe: FDP-Politikerin zieht Bundestagskandidatur zurück

If she were in Britain or the US, she probably would go to prison, once the victims come forward to sue for millions. No real victims are needed. Anyone claiming to have been abused will be automatically believed as there is no due process for those accused of sex crimes.

Human-Stupidity will not take a position towards liberating child sex (disclaimer) But we want to stress the following facts:

 

 

• Adolescent sexual activity is very natural. It should not be confounded with child sexuality. See our numerous posts on Teenage sexuality
• Parents have the right and should control children’s sexual activities, just as they influence children’s food, exercise, study habits.
  • But it is not the government’s task to interfere with draconian punishments for *consensual activities of17 year olds
• Child sexuality is not the worst most terrifying trauma there is. (child sex trauma myth, Rind study)
  • I would be more worried about my child becoming obese (see child food porn),, getting nearly drowned by getting the head dunked into a toilet, then about engaging in *consensual sexual activity (disclaimer).
  • McDonalds gives toys to fatten children, circumvents SF law
• We oppose draconian punishment for possession of copies of 0s and 1s, called child porn, in exception to our constitutional freedom of expression,
  • Even more so as Professor Milton Diamond proved that prohibition of child pornography increases actual child abuse
  • (see Copine scale, and our almost 100 articles on child porn).
• We firmly believe that possession of photos of 17 year old young adults, that are legally allowed to engage in sexual activities should not be a heinous crime.
  • Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them
  • Leading sex research experts against child porn laws: “Adolescents and young adults are no children”
  • Children loved non-nude solo modeling, were traumatized by federal government child porn hysteria: “Photo sessions were the highlight of my life”!

 

More in “Der Spiegel”

• S.P.O.N. – Im Zweifel links: Überall Päderasten! (13.05.2013)
• Missbrauchsdebatte bei den Grünen: Claudia Roth unterstützt Pädophilie-Aufarbeitung (01.05.2013)
• Missbrauchsdebatte: Cohn-Bendit bedauert Äußerungen über Intimitäten mit Kindern (20.04.2013)
• Pädophile hatten Grüne stärker unterwandert als bisher bekannt (12.05.2013)
• Äußerungen zur Sexualität mit Kindern: Voßkuhle sagt Festrede für Cohn-Bendit ab (14.03.2013)

Comment: Many people want to forget the past. God will make sure they don’t. Hell is eternal.

Is it un-Christian to show graphic abortion pictures?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/is-it-un-christian-to-show-graphic-abortion-pictures

On our website is a page that addresses the most common objectionswe hear during our “Face the Truth” Tours, when we show graphic abortion pictures out on the streets—as we’re preparing to do for aweek starting next Friday, July 12.

But in this post I’d like to focus on another objection that I must admit I find it hard to get my head around. Namely, the charge that showing graphic abortion pictures in public is uncharitable—and yea, even un-Christian—especially because of the supposedly damaging effects it has on children.

Personally, I find it understandable that the average secular person might get upset upon seeing a display of graphic abortion pictures.

But I’m gobsmacked when Christians try to claim that showing the victims of abortion in an effort to awaken people’s consciences is actually contrary to our faith.

Showing Graphic Abortion Pictures: Unpopular, But Necessary

As Christians, we know that on that first Good Friday, Our Lord Jesus Christ allowed Himself to be mercilessly scourged, crowned with thorns, and forced to stumble — battered, bloodied, and grotesquely ignominious — through the streets of Jerusalem before being nailed to the Cross. It’s surely safe to assume that there were children among the crowds that day — these were public streets, after all, and the city would have been teeming with families who had come there on pilgrimage for Passover.

Just as our faith demands that we face squarely the brutality that Jesus underwent for our sake in His Passion and Death, and to share this truth with our children — “Train a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not turn away from it” (Proverbs 22:6) — our duty as Christians requires that we face squarely the brutality being done, with the full sanction of law, to 3,400 unborn children in our midst every day.

In the Catholic liturgical calendar, yesterday (June 30) was the traditional commemoration of the First Martyrs of the Holy Roman Church — a day recalling that our ancestors in the Faith were decidedly unpopular for proclaiming Jesus “and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). So too, we should not expect to be popular for showing what abortion does to unborn babies.

Still, it has to be done.

The very reason we go out there on the streets showing abortion pictures is that so many of our fellow citizens — of whatever religion — need this reminder. They’re not thinking about abortion. Much less are they thinking about those of us who are in the pro-life movement — when they’re not thinking of us as “extremists” who are trying to “force” our beliefs on the rest of society, they’re not thinking of us at all.

If in the wake of a Face the Truth Tour, a thousand conversations begin with “I saw a bunch of wackos today” and end with a frank, and long overdue, discussion of abortion, we consider the insults we have the privilege to bear well worth it.

“Lambs among Wolves”

The reality is that following Jesus Christ is. not. easy.  In fact, it’s extremely demanding, and can be very dangerous — as Our Lord told His disciples: “Behold, I am sending you like lambs among wolves” (Luke 10:3). And, it always requires sacrifice.

Now, if our intent as Christians who show graphic abortion pictures were rooted in pride and vindictiveness, I would agree that doing so is the wrong course of action.

But that’s not at all our intent. Rather, our intent is rooted in love: love of God, first of all, and also of the babies He created who are victimized by abortion — and whose bodies we have given a proper Christian burial whenever we have been able to recover them.

Our intent in showing graphic abortion pictures is also rooted in love of the parents who are considering abortion, as we do not want them to do something terribly wrong and that will cause them enormous emotional pain, as well as in love of those who have previously been involved in abortion, that they may seek the mercy and healing that can only come from the God whose Mercy is endless and whose treasury of compassion is inexhaustible.

One woman who has been participating in our Face the Truth Tours for years once told me that she never looks forward to going out on the street and showing graphic abortion signs. In fact, she dreads it.

She dreads it because she hates the fact that we have to do it, and she prays for the day that we won’t have to.

When we show the horrific images of what abortion actually is, it comes front-and-center into a community. Precisely because abortion is so astoundingly destructive — and has touched so very many lives — nobody wants to talk about it.

As the advocates of unborn children — who have no one to speak for themselves — we have to break that silence.

Comment: I am un-Christian and I like graphic abortion pictures.

Christian Marriage

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/During_slavery_did_white_women_have_sex_with_black_slaves#

During slavery did white women have sex with black slaves?

Answer:

Yes, many white women did sleep with their husband’s slaves although this was not a practice that was openly encouraged by their husbands. It was also not a practice that was socially acceptable or a subject that women discussed with each other due to the social taboo associated with women involved in fornication, so it was done very discreetly.

What many people are not aware of is that the U.S. slave trade, which occurred between 1619-1865, happened during a period when many women were also viewed as property and therefore they didn’t really have a strong voice in the social climate at the time. However, the white men of that era were not restricted by the negative social attitudes that were expressed towards slaves and women.

Although, it should never be thought that white women ever experienced the sub-quality life, the torture, the disdain and the disregard for their God-given inalienable human rights that black slaves were subjected to. For example, many white slave owners forcefully had sex with their black female slaves against their will and desire, which today would be considered rape. White women on the other hand, were never subjected to the repeated rapes, beatings, physical abuse, and the impregnation that black female slaves had to endure by white male slave owners.

Comment: Oh yes, they were. It was called Christian marriage. And Black men were subject to lynchings and castrations, while Black women weren’t.

Minus times minus equals plus

Yesterday an “Anti-Fascist” was killed.  As psycho admits, this is a war, and in a war people get wounded and killed. However, he was also a gay activist. As long as White Nationalists take an uncompromising attitude towards homosexuality, they force people to take such positions. Just like homophobic Muslims force people to become like Alfred Vierling. Minus times minus equals plus. Thus, if you hate homosexuals for not having children, and hate Jews for depressing the non-Jewish/non-Muslim White birthrate (Xorg birthrate), a Jewish homosexual like psycho is a good thing.

The most uncompromising homophobes on Stormfront are Slavs. When I pointed out that this was because Muslim Turks sodomized captured Christian Slav boys, they completely freaked out. However, recently they admitted that this indeed happened. So why not use homosexual Slavs to retaliate against Muslim Chechen and Tatar boys?

https://kafircrusaders.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/muslim-immigrant-denies-the-gay-rape-of-14y-o-boy-in-manchester-shopping-mall-toilet/

 

And even if the homosexuals in question are not into boy rape, the obsession with birthrates is pathetic. Let us face it, many young White men become White Nationalists because they hate to see young Brown and Black men having relations with young White women. They then decide that demographic war is the only way out. Get a young White woman and make a lot of White babies. But this is unfeasable rightly because of the (perceived) scarcity of  young White women. So, before you can even think of a breeding war, you need to wage ideological war.

U.S. as well will have to submit to my religion of euthanasia

http://www.alternet.org/economy/4-plagues-getting-handle-coming-apocalypse

Especially for Those About to Retire … Or Thought They Were

Furthermore, financial security for the future, often referred as the “American Dream,” is increasingly out of reach for many millions.  This is especially true for those approaching retirement—a goal that has been undermined, even destroyed, by the economic crash of 2007, which robbed so many of what small wealth they had. Over the long run, a major culprit has been the replacement of pensions by the grossly inadequate 401K model, which is forcing millions of Americans to keep on working, or find marginal jobs to help pay the bills as they age, or in some cases fall into poverty, living only on a meager Social Security stipend.

As Joshua Holland recently noted, this trend “has been an integral part of what Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker called the great risk-shift, in which the burden of paying for education, healthcare and retirement has increasingly shifted from corporations and the government onto the backs of individuals and families.”

Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School for Social Research writes, “The specter of downward mobility in retirement is a looming reality for both middle- and higher-income workers. Almost half of middle-class workers, 49 percent, will be poor or near poor in retirement, living on a food budget of about $5 a day.” She adds, “Seventy-five percent of Americans nearing retirement age in 2010 had less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts.”

But the situation is far from great for recent college graduates, many of whom are being crushed under student loan debt, while facing a competitive and often exploitative job market, where all too often an unpaid internship is an essential way to advance in a career. This is the first generation since the Great Depression that will make less money and have fewer resources than their parents. Perhaps because of dealing with all the stress, this generation has a prescription pill epidemic on their hands, which may be leading to a significant increase in suicides in their demographic.

Comment: Victory is inevitable. Only my religion combines euthanasia with eternal hell to back-up. Also think of my other powerful predictions as regards the civil war in Syria, and the destabilization of Israel by the rapidly breeding Ultra-Orthodox.

HELL IS ETERNAL!!!  HELL IS ETERNAL!!!  HELL IS ETERNAL!!!

Chinese eugenics: you can’t get laid

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gendercide-in-china-marriage-now-costs-ten-years-income

Gendercide: In China, marriage now costs ten years’ income

BY BEN JOHNSON

• Fri May 31, 2013 17:51 EST
• Com

BEIJING, May 31, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Thanks to a gaping gender imbalance caused by decades of sex-selective abortion, getting married in modern China may cost men in some cities ten years’ income or more. In effect, the one child policy has locked all but the economic elite out of marriage.

According to a recent survey, more than two-thirds of Chinese men do not make enough money for women to consider marrying them. Those who do will be paying the bill for years.

Before walking down the aisle, Derek Wei had to pay 68,888 yuan (more than $11,000) in a “bride price,” or dowry, to his future wife, Lucy Wang. “In an ordinary family, the betrothal gift is about $10,000,” Wang said. “To be honest, where I’m from, that’s hardly anything.”

In addition to a hefty dowry, a 2011 survey conducted by the China Association of Social Workers found that 70 percent of Chinese women expect men to provide an apartment as part of the marriage “package” that may also include a car, jewelry, or other luxuries.

An urban apartment in China alone may cost 15 years’ income.

Total marriage costs in the city of Hangzhou “were estimated at 1.78 million yuan ($290,000), whereas in Nanjing they were 1 million yuan ($163,000),” according to The Epoch Times.

The survey found that “80 percent of the single women interviewed think that it’s reasonable for men to only consider a relationship if they receive a monthly income of above 4,000 yuan.”

However, the survey found only 29 percent of men earn more than 15,000 yuan ($2,400) a month, or $28,800 a year.

Future trends look bleak as Chinese men tend to be less educated and earn less money than women, a growing trend in the United States.

Men in many of China’s rural areas, which present less earning potential and are often marked by deep poverty, have little hope of ever tying the knot.

The scarcity of women stems from the nation’s severe sexual imbalance. There are 117 men for every 100 women.

Reggie Littlejohn of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers has long warned that lifelong loneliness is one byproduct of the toxic mixture of cultural sexism and draconian population control measures.

“There are an estimated 37 million Chinese men who will never marry because their future wives were terminated before they were born,” said Littlejohn. “This gender imbalance is a powerful, driving force behind trafficking in women and sexual slavery, not only in China, but in neighboring nations as well.”

China’s population officials have boasted that, since the Communist Party initiated new measures in 1979, the one-child policy has prevented 400 million births. Littlejohn said that number was comprised of 336 million abortions, with the remainder accounted for by forced sterilizations.

According to the State Department, the number of Chinese women is further decimated, as they arethree-times more likely to commit suicide than men due to the nation’s “birth-limitation policies, and other societal factors.”

Ending sex-selective abortion was the theme of this year’s March for Life in Canada,where Littlejohn was keynote speaker.

After years of attempting to bring the most brutal form of sexual discrimination to light, she was grateful the nation’s pro-life movement highlighted forced abortion.

“Thank you,” she said. “You inspire me.”

The United Nations estimates as many as 200 million girls are “missing” worldwide due to sex-selective abortion and gendercide.

• 

  Luzmark1 • a day ago

  • −

  In the USA, people get abortions on demand, where in China they are forced to have them China shows the eventual consequences of leaving God and His righteousness out.

  • 

    AcceptingReality  Luzmark1 • 16 hours ago

    So, the people in the USA willingly participate in their own demise while in China they are forced to do so……The future seems more bleak for the USA.
• 

  TheodoreSeeber • 13 hours ago

  ” In effect, the one child policy has locked all but the economic elite out of marriage.”

  In other words they’re living the Margaret Sanger Dream- “More children for the fit, fewer for the unfit”
• 

  Andrew Patton • a day ago

  Ten years’ income is a typical nest egg for someone about to retire. It is hopelessly out of range for a person to accumulate, part with, and then still be able to survive and support a family. It would take me 5-10 years to accumulate the kind of wealth they’re talking about, and I make more than the average American, let alone the average Chinese. Under these conditions, it becomes a rational choice for a man to bet his life savings on a single number of a roulette wheel, as this will give him a 2% chance of being able to marry and have a family, as opposed to the 0% chance he has trying to save up that kind of money through hard work and prudence.

Comment: Again, the Catholic readers understand the implications very well. Do non-Chinese have to fear the bare branches of China? What will happen to them if they become old and don’t have children? Confucianist religion and thus, Chinese culture, doesn’t condone euthanasia. Buddhist religion, or at least Tibetan culture, does condone euthanasia. This means that Tibet stands a good chance of turning the tables on their Chinese oppressors. Then ally to their coreligionists in Burma.

Why all seems quiet on the far-left front

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/31/all-quiet-far-left-front

The people who attend leftwing summits are still struggling with media relations – and with the notion of working-class Tories

‘The hard left’s image suffers because of mutual abandonment.’ Photograph: Rex Features/KeystoneUSA-ZUMA

What is happening left of Labour? Follow the regular papers and you might draw a blank. We glance regularly, and anxiously, over our right shoulders. I saw the EDL’s London protest this Monday – it was a little scary. But it’s easy to forget that things were different in the past: the far left, not the far right, has often made the more convincing anti-establishment pitch in periods of crisis. A rising anti-politics tide needn’t only lift the right’s boats.

But today the left seems quieter. To be sure, we feel the ripples of their activity. Journalists-cum-activists such as Laurie Penny and Owen Jonespass messages from one world to the other, translating from the Guardian’s coffee-shop liberalism to the hard left’s heavy-print protests. But as the three (or four?) main parties jostle for the centre-ground, the Bennites seem far away, and quietly abandoned.

The place they have gone to is the grassroots. Their infrequent assemblies are attended by union members, pressure groups, tenants and lone wolves. Earlier this month, the People’s Assembly Against the Austerity gathered in Nottingham for a large meeting. Also in May, different groups met at the Benefit Justice summit in the Methodist Central Hall, Westminster, which I attended. Hundreds talked, listened, resolved and then dissolved.

But seemingly, today it’s a place where mainstream journalists don’t, or won’t, follow them. Those journalists’ audiences are missing a lot.

What’s the character of these meetings of the “summit left”? Fabians and revolutionaries sat side-by-side, and all were united in their admirable and unbending anti-racism. Speakers gave animated defences of migrant workers. Scarcely was the word “solidarity” spoken so often, and so earnestly, as it was at the Benefit Justice summit on 11 May.

The summit left, reaching deep into urban communities, clings firmly to principles apparently abandoned by Labour. It’s the defence of the welfare state, if anything, that acts as its core impetus. The bedroom tax, disability payments, council housing – these issues are drawing crowds.

But the hard left summit-goers have serious problems too – problems of image and problems of profounder politics. The hard left’s image suffers because of mutual abandonment: when the Labour party and its media machinery moved right in the 1990s and 2000s, it seems like many on the hard left began to view media work as a rather Blairite activity, characterised by compromises Faustian and politically fatal. Instead the emphasis is on protest and local lobbying. There doesn’t seem to be a systematic attempt to bring arguments, and narratives, to the national press, where they could be heard more widely.

Media aside, there are practical political questions that need answers. Latter-day Trotskys must answer practical questions about Trotskyism; those with less radical programmes must do the same. For example, where will the money come from? How will the rebellious bond market be tamed, or disposed of?

More interestingly, perhaps, the summit left seems to neglect a real chunk of the population: those who aren’t rich, but vote Tory. When theRev Paul Nicolson suggested, at a recent summit, that summit-goers should appeal to Conservative voters for their support in protecting the welfare state, he was met with some deep-set scepticism. This is a serious problem: the left cannot pretend that welfare is only threatened by the Tory stereotypes, Bullingdon-bred and to the manor born. Very few of these creatures really exist. Actually, welfare is threatened by a far broader coalition, including many Tory voters on low incomes, who must be given an explicit answer to the question: why should I pay for your benefits? The postwar consensus has always had answers to that question. We should hear them again.

These problems help explain why the left doesn’t get press coverage. Summit left’s occasionally fantastical worldview must be more constructive, and more realistic, to exert an ideological pull against the flood.

But a large part of media’s radio silence is genuinely out of the left’s hands: there is an idée fixe that, after Thatcher and after the Soviets, the proper place of socialists is in the past. This is wrong. The left’s extreme wing, despite its problems, already offers a far more constructive and optimistic programme than the extreme right’s: it deserves a greater impact than it has on Labour’s policy (because Labour will necessarily be the conduit that renders its ideas politically possible), and on the national political consciousness. To Labour’s continuing fixation with the right, the summit left raises an irreverent middle finger. But today it does so too often inside a closed room, and nobody notices.

Comment: The critique of capitalism (Libertarianism) by the Radical Left does deserve far more attention. The Liberal notions of “racism”, where “oppressed” groups cannot be “racist”, only “oppressing” groups, make only sense within a Radical Left framework. Liberals accept the Libertarian narrative in which the poor and the convicted are lazy, stupid, if not downright evil, but suddenly turn this on its head when it comes to groups. Suddenly being poor and being convicted is proof of being “oppressed”, with all the perks and privileges Cultural “Marxism” grants to them, most notably the unequal standard in judging “racism”, which is, however, fully justified if you understand the axioms of the Radical Left.

dutchiez

31 May 2013 3:03pm

Recommend

193

@darylrevok – we need a Left with working class people in it and ones that actually work, god forbid. The Left now are 100% middle-class and have never worked. There is nothing worse than the middle-class operatives of the SWP and UAF arriving in a working class estate being overrun with Muslim immigrants, telling the residents who are shit scared of grooming, how they should embrace multiculturalism – before heading back to their parent’s detached houses in the suburbs.

This comment is also very telling, both ways. Anti-immigrant parties are only credible if they strengthen the position of the working class.  However, some on the Radical Left, notably Sakai and the Third-Worldists are openly admitting they give up on the non-immigrant working class, or even the immigrant working class in the First World. Honesty in all would be welcomed.

Does the Free Market lead to demographic implosion?

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

Ricardo and Malthus debated this in a lengthy personal correspondence. ^[6]

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=114&Itemid=27

About this title:

David Ricardo and T. R. Malthus shared an endearing friendship despite a contentious divergence of opinion on many political economic issues. This volume contains the formal remnants of their differences. Ricardo analyzes, issue-by-issue, his points of divergence to Malthus’s Principles of Political Economy. Malthus’s contributions to political economics generally concern his bleak forecast that a geometrically growing population would surpass the arithmetically growing capacity of essential natural resources.

Copyright information:

First published by Cambridge University Press in 1951. Copyright 1951, 1952, 1955, 1973 by the Royal Economic Society. This edition of The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo is published by Liberty Fund, Inc., under license from the Royal Economic Society.

Fair use statement:

This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.

Comment: Everybody should study this discussion. E. Michael Jones makes similar points.

Initiation of violence and the aggression principle

Hans Hoppe; Democracy, the God that failed:

There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They–the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism–will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

And why exactly doesn’t this guy have a special page on Antifa websites? The Antifa supposedly protects democracy from its enemies. Yes, Communists have perfect democracy, and Salafists are oppressed victims of racism, but why let Libertarians get off the hook? It can’t be their lack of open Anti-Semitism, as the EDL, the PVV and the like are vilified and harassed. Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression principle. Everything is allowed but the initiation of violence. What about the inverse? Only the initiation of violence is allowed, only aggression. That would be just as consistent. If a Libertarian now visits me and beats the crap out of me, he would defend himself, and thát is not allowed under the aggression principle!!!

As a side note, Libertarians would be just as vulnerable to asymmetric warfare as many others. If a Libertarian gets severy wounded and crippled, he cannot have euthanasia, as that would be National-SOCIALIST, and Libertarians take great pains to lump them with bad, evil Communists. Not even compensation is possible, as his fellow Libertarians can provide him charity. Talking about charity, voluntary charity is based on the idea that humans are basically altruistic, while the laws of the free market presuppose human egoism. This is fundamentally irreconcilable. In practice, people “stupid” enough to provide large amounts of charity, will weaken their position on the free market. Therefore, the amount of charity is calibrated to be just enough to prevent revolutions. As the threat of revolution is not just necessary to push for reformism, but also influences the amount of charity, not even “voluntary” charity is really voluntary. So why bother.

Under Libertarianism, the threat of Communism can never be fully stamped out, and under Communism, the threat of Libertarianism, that is, the resurgence of the free market, can never be fully stamped out, so both ideologies should give up their utopian pretensions. Class tension will always be with humanity.