The Stark Truth  
Robert Stark Interviews Ramzpaul

5 comments

1. Greg Johnson says:

   November 9, 2012 at 8:08 pm

   Ramzpaul repeatedly asserts that we really don’t need to worry about having a racially pure country. America was just fine when it had around 10% non-whites. When whites flee to the burbs, they are trying to escape blacks and hispanics. They really don’t worry about Asians. So we should just content ourselves with not adding new non-whites through immigration. And if the country breaks up, we need not worry about creating homogeneously white areas, just majority-white areas free of black and hispanic pathologies. Furthermore, White Nationalist talk of homogeneous homelands and preventing miscegenation just frightens away “normal” people.

   There is a very simple answer to this line of thought: Since non-whites are reproducing faster than whites, unless that problem is addressed, even a country that starts with 10 percent non-whites will eventually have a non-white majority. Thus it is not enough to merely stop adding non-whites through legal or illegal immigration. We have to deal with the differential birthrate problem as well, or whites will still become minorities in our homelands.

   Now, Ramzpaul could have explained that very simple point even better than I did. He could have created a video that could have enlightened and emboldened normal people by explaining in measured and moderate tones that we extremists are right once you take differential birthrates into account, and it would have been funny too.

   In fact, he could have done all that in the amount of time that he devoted in this very interview to posturing as a moderate, “triangulating” against and shitting on White Nationalists as “obsessed” with “abstractions” like racial homogeneity, and pandering to the ignorance, squeamishness and love of compromise and half-measures so characteristic of “normal” people — or, to be more precise, of normal people when we abandon leading them and start following them, when we stop teaching them truths and start accommodating their illusions.

   I like this guy’s videos, but he comes off as a smug, dishonest douche in his interview.

   0

   0

   1. Rune Lauritzen says:

      November 13, 2012 at 9:23 am

      If CC was Facebook, I would have pressed ‘Like’, because this comment is exactly what my frustrations with Ramzpaul have been lately.

      The only thing I could add was obscenities about Libertarian “nationalism” – a dirty and disgusting concept.

      0

      0
2. Mighty says:

   November 10, 2012 at 12:12 am

   This guy rubs me the wrong way, always has.

   0

   0
3. Trainspotter says:

   November 11, 2012 at 12:12 am

   Some of Ramzpaul’s videos have been brilliantly hilarious, but this interview was not his finest hour. Apologies for the length of this post, but Ramz deserves a bit of a shredding, and as I’m always happy to oblige…

   As to the idea that homogeneity is “extreme,” he couldn’t be further from the truth. Firstly, he whitewashes the good old days when America was 90 percent white. Even dealing with a ten percent minority population required serious and proactive discrimination on a fairly massive scale, both legal and extralegal. It was no walk through the park, and hardly “libertarian.” Don’t get me wrong, such a scenario is infinitely superior to our current landscape of racial and cultural dispossession against a backdrop of rape and murder that 1950’s Americans could not have imagined, but it’s hardly a workable model for the future. “Hey, let’s go back to a time when non-whites were second class citizens! Sure, we’ll still have lots of non-white on white rapes and murders, but there will be fewer than today! We’ll also have conflict in a thousand different ways, but a little less intense. Let’s do it! O.K? Who’s with me?”

   Nobody is going to buy that, Ramz. 1950 is long gone, and even powerful Haitian voodoo ain’t bringing it back.

   Moving right along, Ramz believes that the United States, as currently constituted, will ultimately break up, and that we may end up getting our own (new) country. I agree. But when that happens, why would we want to go back to 1950, knowing how quickly that was followed by 1954 and beyond? Knowing how quickly that was followed by, well, TODAY?

   We want a country that can serve as a vessel for our people, operating in the interest of our people. Not kinda sorta in our interest, but in our interest. If we have ten percent non-whites (and even putting the important issue of differential birthrates aside), these non-whites are either going to be second class citizens, or not. If they are second class citizens, then the historical track record isn’t great.

   When we get our big chance, is that really worth trying to recreate? Even if you could recreate it, would it be sustainable? And what, pray tell, is the upside? Providing a cheap and exploited labor source that can be used to beat up on white labor? What? It’s a non-starter that nobody is going to fight for.

   And if, on the other hand, they are truly equal citizens, then how is that sustainable either? If they are equal and cherished citizens, why not eleven percent? Why not twenty percent? Why not, I don’t know, ninety five percent? How do you have equal and cherished citizens, but magically limit them to ten percent? In a lot of areas of life, it’s easy and necessary to draw a line. With something like this, however, it’s arbitrary and unworkable.

   But even if we stuck with the ten percent figure, we would not be able to have a society that truly represents our group interests. For example, in a healthy ethnostate it would be imperative to teach an accurate version of history, including the absolute disaster of muliculturalism and multiracialism. How do you do that when ten percent of the students in the classroom are non-white? How do you inculcate a deep understanding and reverence for our European heritage when every tenth student is not European?

   Answer: in the long run, you can’t, at least if they are equal citizens. Having non-white students will inevitably change the way our story is taught, and the values that are taught. It will change who we are, our understanding of where we came from and where we are going. It will, in short, change our very story, and ultimately our society. Again, what is the upside?

   It’s not coincidental that, just in my adult life, I’ve seen MLK displace Jefferson and Washington as the most iconic and revered of Americans. This wasn’t happenstance, it was inevitable and entirely foreseeable. That’s why many of our Founders, including Jefferson, believed that blacks could not live in the same polity as whites. That’s why many supported African colonization. Why recreate the problem, when we get our chance to build something better?

   I realize that, on the surface at least, Asians are generally less offensive to us than blacks, but they would create serious problem as well. (just as an aside, Asians went overwhelmingly for Obama the other day, giving him a higher vote share than even hispanics, despite the fact that in terms of education, income and other factors they almost perfectly fit the Republican profile. think about that for a moment)

   Ramz, you have a talent with humor. That’s good. But you’re not thinking clearly on some of these questions. Multiracialism, even at ten percent, is unworkable. Those societies that have tried it have, pretty much across the board, come to grief and tears. Or simply settled into a new normal of economic exploitation, crime, gross inequality, poverty and mediocrity. Nice for the plutocrats, not so nice for everybody else. Ten percent is a pretty significant number of people, but even smaller numbers can cause enormous problems, swing elections, and create real mischief. As one example amongst many, just ask the French in Quebec, who lost their vote for independence back in the nineties because minorities were able to tip the electoral scales against it. I’m guessing those non-whites who were able to stop Quebec independence were heavily Asian. The government did everything it could to process non-white citizenship ahead of the vote, knowing full well that they would vote against independence. Francophones voted decisively for independence, but it was not to be.

   Ah, those cute and wacky Asians. Let’s make sure we include the Donger in any future nation. I mean, he just has to be a part of it. Can’t really tell you why.

   Needless to say, I kid.

   In contrast to all of this, there is nothing noxious about saying, “I support self-determination and sovereignty for my people, as well as for other peoples.”

   That’s White Nationalism, Ramz, and it would be nice if you stopped pretending that it wasn’t. Anybody who has a problem with that is not ready for White Nationalism anyway. Hopefully they will come around in time, but there is absolutely no upside in compromising on this point. Compromise just gets you in an untenable situation, discussing how non-whites would fair in a predominantly white society. To go that route is not a conversational winner, but a mess not worth getting into.

   As for those whites who want to live in the same polity with non-whites, well, let them. When this country breaks up, undoubtedly there will be plenty of mixed areas when the dust settles. There are already plenty of mixed areas in Latin America and other parts of the world. Of course, they will have to accept the consequences of their choice: living in a culturally confused and degraded environment, high crime, bad schools, corrupt and incompetent officials and political leaders, failing civic institutions, less economic wealth, and a thousand other pathologies. But hey, in exchange they will get plenty of Mexican restaurants! In any event, their choice.

   What they will NOT be free to do is to make a personal decision to race mix, and then impose the resulting problems on the coming white nation. As a quasi-libertarian Ramz, you should get the concept of free riders. That is exactly what the white who wants to race mix, but still live in a white society, is trying to do. Yet he is in fact worse than a mere free rider, because his choices actually degrade the very social benefits that an all white community provides. He wants the benefits of white society, while actively undermining them. How is that reasonable?

   I reject that one has the “freedom” to free ride, while simultaneously trashing the other guy’s house. It’s absurd. Instead, he will have the very real and non-absurd freedom to live in a mixed community, and suffer the consequences or reap the benefits of his decision without imposing those costs on the white community. Fair is fair, and let’s not allow cheating.

   Like, expand your mind, brah!! Gotta just let the Donger go. I promise you, he will be o.k. Plenty more where he came from.

   0

   0

   1. Jannik Thorsen says:

      November 20, 2012 at 11:37 am

      Racemixing brings along a whole host of externalities, which modern liberal society willfully ignores.

      I think you are accurate when you describe racemixing as a form of freeriding action, when one chooses to live in a relativily homogenous society.

      The racemixer however, does usually not percieve that she/he is doing anything wrong. Some actually believe that they are “enriching” society with their degrading lifestyle choice, or they alternativily believe that it is their individual “right” to do so.

      I have even heard some crazy women claim that they are performing some sort of altruistic act, when they import some third-world spouse, and thereby pollute the white genepool with their miscegenation.

      I suspect Ramzpaul is inching closer to the mainstream media(although still far from it), and is therefore trying to clean up his act. This is why he is defending a toned down version of the multicultural state, and writing of the ethnically homogenous state as some sort of deranged fantasy.

      0

      0

Comments are closed.