Top

The Sunic Journal: Interview with Rob Freeman

January 12, 2010

Dr. Sunic and Rob Freeman discuss how centralization leaves a people disempowered and at the mercy of a ruling elite unconcerned with their interests. Topics include:

  • How government handouts from the Democratic Party create a dependable voting block.
  • How food can be used as a weapon; how to defend one’s family by becoming more self-reliant.
  • The forced perpetuation of increased economic growth as the current “crisis of capitalism”; distinguishing economic progress from cultural progress & sustainability.
  • And much more!

Catch Rob Freeman’s insightful articles at TOQ Online.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Tom:
tom.sunic hotmail.com

Comments

9 Responses to “The Sunic Journal: Interview with Rob Freeman”

  1. Tom J. on January 13th, 2010 7:45 am

    Now that Europe is getting more immigrants, is their health care system suffering ? If so, maybe this will wake people up there if they can see a direct link between non-Whites and reduction in the quality (and expense) of social services.

    Croatia sounds like a nice place, hopefully getting into the EU won’t destroy the country.

    I think Tom thinks American is more capitalistic than it really is. Big Business forces so many regulations into law to prevent competition that the “free” part of free market isn’t really there. Also, all those welfare programs used by minorities is more evidence that we aren’t a capitalist country, but rather a mixed economy.

    The US is a corporate-ocracy with social welfare for non-whites. The worst of both worlds…

  2. cladrastis on January 13th, 2010 9:44 pm

    Yes food can be used as a weapon; I’m sure both Kievsky and Sunic know of the Holodomor. That is one of the problems with Kievsky’s theory of the problem of centralization. During the Holodomor, the grain that individuals grew was confiscated by the Soviet authorities and allowed to rot in train cars and granaries. Although I agree that decentralization of the food system is mostly desirable, I’m not sure that complete decentralization is necessary. And ultimately the problem is one of power and rule (for even in an agrarian society like Ukraine circa 1932, the authorities can subvert the independence of the yeomanry). I agree with almost everything Rob mentioned. Great interview. Reminds me of the anxiously awaited “monstrous synthesis of the left and right”.

  3. Fenrisulfr on January 14th, 2010 2:47 am

    I have downloaded the podcast, and hope that premonitions of more of Sunic’s notorious and monotonous capitalism-bashing are proven false. Yes, we must be reminded time and again of the evils of the voluntary exchange of goods and services, for such evil warrants repetition…NOT

  4. Morgan on January 19th, 2010 9:47 pm

    Fenrisulfr, free enterprise is not equivocal with capitalism. Sunic is not against free enterprise. Only a madman would be. What you have to get through your American skull is that when Sunic talks about capitalism, he is talking about liberalism*, economic liberalism, whatever you want to call it. This idea is hostile to all forms of tradition, nation and race and is wont to see particular peoples as universal cogs in the machine that is the liberal god called The Economy. To the liberal/capitalist we are nothing more than homo oeconomicus, or economic man. A deracinated, atomised individual whose only purpose in life is economic transactions. This is more or less the same rationale behind communism. Communism and capitalism are two sides of the same Enlightenment coin.

    I implore you to put down your Rand, Rothbard, Friedman [all of whom were jews]… etc and read some actual nationalist/rightwing philosophy and not liberal economics.

    *Liberalism as in what the rest of the world considers liberalism, not the pathetic American usage.

  5. Fenrisulfr on January 19th, 2010 10:26 pm

    Capitalism and economic liberalism are one in the same. According to BusinessDictionary.com:

    the former: Economic system based (to a varying degree) on private ownership of the factors of production (capital, land, and labor) employed in generation of profits. It is the oldest and most common of all economic systems and, in general, is synonymous with free market system.

    the latter: Concept that a government should not try to control prices, rents, and/or wages but instead let open competition and forces of demand and supply create an equilibrium between them that benefits the vast majority of citizens.

    Also, I do not know what editions of Rothbard and Hayek you have been reading, but we here in the libertarian camp are about minding our own business. We are not hostile to all nations, races, nor traditions, but we are opposed to those that are coercive and violate individual rights. It seems you are in fear of a fictional jack-booted libertarian gestapo or thought police that seeks to abolish such concepts.

    Prove that capitalism/economic liberalism is hostile to race, tradition, nation, etc. via the Austrian tradition and you will have made a worthy argument. Barring that, you have not met your burden of proof and have thus lost credibility in my eyes.

  6. WP on January 19th, 2010 11:12 pm
  7. Rich on January 20th, 2010 3:32 am

    I think the very definition of seeking to profit maximize suggests that you make decisions irregardless of race. So, if it is more profitable to import cheap labor, or import highly intelligent non-Whites then you will. That’s what happens in the USA, and it is turning the country non-White.

    Capitalism, etc. may be race-neutral, but the end result, in a world with most people being non-White, is that the people who are imported are non-Whites. The US can’t import cheap White labor, so under the desire to lower costs and maximize profit, cheap non-White labor is imported. The trend will be toward darkening the country.

    Because there are highly intelligent non-Whites in Asia, it will be profitable to bring them into the US. Since there are billions of Asians, the number that can be brought in under profit maximizing is HUGE.

    Anyway, the concept of Nation doesn’t work for libertarians because, in the libertarian world, there is only private land, and the government can’t tell a private land owner who can enter their property…so national borders are meaningless.

    I wonder if the libertarians would like to live with 100% private property, and no government interference on selling/buying land — guess what would happen — sovereign wealth funds from around the world would buy up our land. No private entity can compete with a sovereign wealth fund. China and Abu Dhabi could probably buy a lot of US land and move 100s of millions of people here.

    Minimal government is nice, and I like it, but the internal national environment has to be a strictly White one. So, strong borders, but freedom on the inside. Otherwise, the dynamics of the world will mean non-Whites will eventually take over.

  8. Fenrisulfr on January 20th, 2010 5:08 am

    We disagree on the premises and the logical processes, so I will not bother addressing your argument. I will say this – all rights are property rights, anything less is rubbish.

  9. johnUK on January 20th, 2010 5:42 pm

    @cladrastis

    I have still to listen to this broadcast so I do not know what the discussion is about or in what context but I will comment on your statement.

    “Yes food can be used as a weapon; I’m sure both Kievsky and Sunic know of the Holodomor. That is one of the problems with Kievsky’s theory of the problem of centralization. During the Holodomor, the grain that individuals grew was confiscated by the Soviet authorities and allowed to rot in train cars and granaries. Although I agree that decentralization of the food system is mostly desirable, I’m not sure that complete decentralization is necessary. And ultimately the problem is one of power and rule (for even in an agrarian society like Ukraine circa 1932, the authorities can subvert the independence of the yeomanry).”

    Actually collectivisation was so agriculture was put under state control were rich peasants landowners (Kulaks) and have serfdom of the poorer peasants and as a source for income to finance industrial development to sell abroad for foreign capital.

    I doubt they would confiscate food just for it to rot when it was needed to sell abroad as there main export at that time.

    The Holodomor a man-made famine narrative is a hoax based on Nazi propaganda and pro-fascist William Randolph Hearst who had meeting and ties with top Nazi officials including Hitler media empire and a serious of publications on the “famine” using images of the Red Cross bulletin from the 1921-22 Volga famine and doctored photos from a phoney journalist called Thomas Walker who’s real name was Robert Green a convict forger who reported on the famine and provided pictures for Hearst media famine serial.

    “There was indeed a famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s. It appears likely that hundreds of thousands, possibly one or two million, Ukrainians died — the minority from starvation, the majority from related diseases. By any scale, this is an enormous toll of human suffering. By general consensus, Stalin was partially responsible. By any stretch of an honest imagination, the tragedy still falls short of genocide.

    In 1932, the Soviet Union was in crisis. The cities had suffered food shortages since 1928. Grain was desperately needed for export and foreign capital, both to fuel the first Five-Year Plan and to counter the growing war threat from Germany. In addition, the Communist Party’s left wing, led by Stalin, had come to reject the New Economic Plan, which restored market capitalism to the countryside in the 1920s.

    In this context, collectivization was more than a vehicle for a cheap and steady grain supply to the state. It was truly a “revolution from above,” a drastic move towards socialism, and an epochal change in the mode of production. There were heavy casualties on both sides — hundreds of thousands of kulaks (rich peasants) deported to the north, thousands of party activists assassinated. Production superseded politics, and many peasants were coerced rather than won to collective farms. Vast disruption of the 1932 harvest ensued (and not only in the Ukraine), and many areas were hard-pressed to meet the state’s grain requisition quotas.

    Again, Stalin and the Politburo played major roles. “But there is plenty of blame to go around,” as Sovietologist John Arch Getty recently noted in The London Review of Books. “It must be shared by the tens of thousands of activists and officials who carried out the policy and by the peasants who chose to slaughter animals, burn fields, and boycott cultivation in protest.”

    Extracts from an 1988 Village Voice article In Search of a Soviet Holocaust A 55 year old famine fuels the right by Jeff Coplan

    http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html

    The late Douglas Tottle wrote a book about it in 87 called which cites all the evidence of how the fraud was done.

    http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm

    There is several times however that the British Empire used famine as a weapon in Ireland and India for example.

Bottom