You are engaged in tedious nitpicking.

Myself, I oppose international trade, and I support centralized eugenic action. I am also very opposed to radical individualism. Am I a ‘libertarian’? Who knows, let others decide; I call myself a National Mutualist, but that means little outside of my own paradigm.

Hadding. Answer me this. What draw-back of state power have the Republicans done that has been more radically fiscally conservative than the ‘welfare reform’ signed off on by Bill Clinton?

I say again. I am not here to argue for libertarian notions. I know where you stand on these matters. I am here to keep you honest. The Republican party has no connection to reduction of state power, even ‘socialist’ state power, except in meaningless rhetoric (or in the Social Security issue, to transfer the power from state bureaucracy to state-supported corpratocracy)

Libertarianism has no answer to our problems. Ask a libertarian if he would support any regulations that would preserve the White race against miscegenation in this country. He will say no. Libertarians ultimately are no friends of the White race.

You are absolutely right when you say that Republicans alienate the working class by being plutocrats supporting big-industry. Plutocrats are not today, and it is hard to say they ever have been, in favor of reducing the size or scope of government. However, perhaps you are referring to this definition of “deregulation” given top me, with a straight face, by a typical Chomskyite:

“deregulation is when the government does anything good for big business. Making it illegal to not buy insurance is deregulation.”

It doesn’t matter if reducing the size of government is good or bad, what matters is that there is no major political bloc that actually supports reduction of government, but one of them claims to be. I realize that agreeing with their lies makes a good boogyman for anyone who wants to argue against small states, as only a fool would support the kleptocrat GOP, but I thought you were very concerned with accuracy.

Will you do a show about Dr. Pierce, Hadding? I would love to hear you talk about him. After all; you knew him personally (if I’m not mistaken).

Talking to the average Republican voter, it is clear they do not support small government….

Okay you are obviously a libertarian, viewing everything through the libertarian lens.

You should know perfectly well what was meant. The Republicans want less government in terms of social programs and regulation (many because they see it as a sneaky way to be politically racist). That’s what Rockwell discussed. He said that the Republicans alienated many White working-class voters in 1964 because of this position, and it is clear that in 2012 they lost for the same reason.

The Republican party has a “small government ideology”?

Not in my lifetime, and probably not in yours.

Ronnie “government is the problem, not the solution” Reagan expanded the federal government by 30%, and did not do so under protest. He vetoed one budget, apparently because it was too small, as he happily signed the larger revised budget which came back to him.

From 2003 to 2007, Republicans controlled the elected federal government. What happened to the size of government and the scope of its power during those years?

Talking to the average Republican voter, it is clear they do not support small government, and there’s a nice cross correlation in a General Social Survey which says exactly what one experienced would expect: the people who are most adamant about saying they want a smaller government want a bigger government than the people who do not consider themselves so radical about cutting government.

You’re too good to parrot the Punch-and-Judy false dielectric of the Glenn Beck / Naomi Klein distraction industry.

… is Patler/Patsalos still alive?

Not sure. He was born about 1938. I noticed a government agency looking for information about him on my blog a year or so back. I suppose that it would be reported in mass-media if he died.