>>it's question of who should Who has the moral authority to say so? >>You're arguing yugos are more true than fords because you're driving a yugo Ah, so are we saying this is strictly a relativistic issue? I am trying to speak to issues of authority and justification. Let's try to situate it in practical terms. You are calling us to fight against Jewish control because you say it should not continue. Without any kind of moral backdrop, their 'right' to control is just as fair as yours. On your terms, this is simply an issue of who can stake a claim and back it up. On what grounds should people take up your fight? It's certain you think that people should find Communism wrong, and that they should be defending something you say is theirs. We'll take this to be something like shared history and cultural legacy. Okay, that sounds great. I'm sure there are people who will agree with you, a majority of which likely frequent sites like this. But it raises the question: why do so many people who share your cultural background also believe Communism is a good thing, or, a form of progress. They will argue that just because something hasn't existed in the past, doesn't mean that it doesn't represent a form of progress. Especially given the fact that these Jews have such an entrenched global-scale power structure, what reason have you given people to fight for your cause (when it might mean the total eradication of their currently comfortable life)? Without an appeal to some moral authority, you've got, "Well, well, we are the same color and our ancestors shared this ground. You *ought* to defend it." If this kind of thing is the best you've got, a kind of morality-free game theoretic situation, you've got shit. You're seeing it play out now. Go. Gather up your hardline trad conservatives and see what you can manage. Anybody intelligent can see you're going to fail, and fail miserably. The truth is incredibly relevant here. We require an appeal to something higher than being offended about violation of non-aggression principles. Men need to be unified by something transcendent to themselves, and in this day and age, that's not the notion of freedom. We've run that course about as far as it can go. We need righteous structure now, and that doesn't happen in a libertarian society. You will never foster the kind of group ethic and tendency to self-sacrifice by fighting in a cohesive way through libertarian principles.