Andrew Anglin of Daily Stormer interviews Alex Linder: Daily Stormer Interview with Alex Linder
Trigger warning: Mr. Linder is pretty extreme…more so than probably the vast majority of the alt-right…He makes Richard Spencer seem like Obama by comparison.
This passage stood out:
I think I’ve given you that above. I happened to drive through a lot of the country two times in October, and he certainly won the battle of outside signs. I thought the election would be very close. I think Romney had the key insight last time: that 47% of the population is essentially parasitic, and would vote for the devil herself if he represented their benefits. This is another reason I’m antisocialist – it turns white men into niggers. If a white man needs government to provide health, education and welfare, then he’s not a white man. We never needed that centralized bureaucratic monstrosity before the 20th century, and look at the misery and bankruptcy and generally fecklessness that resulted from ‘public education’ (conformity concentration camps for kids), welfare and the rest. The key is is that Trump is a proxy for whites, white interests, a real nation.
I agree with Mr. Linder about Romney and the ‘parasitic class’, having mentioned Romney here and again in an earlier post about why a basic income won’t work in America. America has too many takers and not enough makers.
However, I doubt a laissez-faire, small-government, non-socialist, non-bureaucratic, white ethno-state can exist, or at least not without major preconditions. As I explain HBD-Nationalism Conundrum, a in a free market, companies have to make use of all labor options to be competitive, possibly conflicting with ethno-interests. The only way this could be resolved is if the whole world were white (which obv. it isn’t) or if major restriction on trade and labor are imposed, but then it would not be laissez-faire. The UAE, for example, is a federation of seven eremites and has capitalism, but it also has a lot of foreign labor – about 7.8 million of its 9.2 million population are expatriates, who have access to few benefits, are ineligible for citizenship, are unable to purchase property, and must leave the country after working. That’s an example of how an ethno-state could work, but it would not be a pure ethno-state.
The main problem with Mr. Linder’s argument is that eliminating social safety nets means people have to become self-sufficient. Although they can turn to community for support (churches and families), it means survival (necessities such a food and shelter) will come before ethno-interests. Although limiting social benefit will make the economy more efficient, like above, it will possibly conflict with enthno-interests, and additionally, there may be more unrest and crime as people resort to any means necessary (including nefarious underground activity) to make ends meet once all welfare benefits are rescinded.
With or without social benefits, turning America into an ethno-state is impossible, much more more so than mot countries. Some factors that auger poorly for homogeneity include: America’s deep-seated racial and ethnic diversity, the large geographical size of America, and America’s large population size. Catholics and Protestant, although both are mostly white, are very different culturally. Homogeneity works better for smaller countries like Iceland, Norway, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark.