Queer Worried WHINOs Will Endanger Powerful Faileocons & Feebletarians

[Alex Linder]

[A remarkably dishonest piece, even for Raimondo. Rip it apart. I'll be back to comment later.]

Nationalists Without a Nation
by Justin Raimondo on May 28, 2009


Double Helix

Jared Taylor’s recent posting on Takimag has drawn a number of a responses, including from Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer, both of which make some good points. I’m afraid, however, that neither really hits on the essential problem—although Gottfried does mention it in passing, almost as an afterthought—which is that Taylor’s call for whites to organize along lines of “racial solidarity” represents the most complete and abject surrender to multi-culturalism. His bid to become the white Al Sharpton is not only a massive contradiction, coming from someone who ostensibly opposes privileging individuals on account of their alleged race, it is downright pathetic.

To being with, he avers that “if you can’t beat them, join them”—that is, if you can’t beat the multiculti rules and regulations that increasing afflict our lives, then the best policy is one of … surrender. He cites a case where the city of New Haven threw out the results of a test taken by aspiring firemen in which blacks didn’t do as well as the city would have liked. New Haven bureaucrats threw out the test results for all races, not just blacks, and did the whole procedure over again: this, claims Taylor, is anti-white “discrimination.”

While Paul Gottfried inexplicably claims that most of the white nationalists he has met are “libertarians,” it appears that their Maximum Leader is not among them: for the libertarian would argue that the entire procedure and the unfairness inherent in it could be eliminated by simply privatizing the fire department. Of course, it would still be possible to pursue the elusive goal of equality of results through enforcement of the so-called civil rights laws—yet that is precisely what Taylor would do on behalf of “oppressed” whites. This kind of scam is wrong when blacks try to pull it off, but right when engaged in by whites.

The Taylorite commitment to “white racial consciousness” is simply a cracked mirror image of the worst excesses of the “black power” movement—and it is advanced with much less justification. After all, whites can hardly point to a long history of “oppression” at the hands of non-whites: indeed, precisely the reverse is the case. It is whites who engaged in the slave trade, and some of them fought a war to keep blacks in chains. State-enforced racial segregation was the rule and the law in many Southern states, up until relatively recently: where oh where is the history of white “oppression” at the hands of black slave-masters?

Taylor and his acolytes are like those teenage boys who dress in baggy pants hanging down to their buttocks, carry boom-boxes, and “act black” because it’s considered “cool.” They want in on the multi-culti action, and, like “Vanilla Ice,” the wannabe white rapper, he’s baffled when people consider him a joke.

Yet it isn’t a joke. Taylor is dead serious, but what is he serious about? Ostensibly, he’s upset over those white firemen denied jobs in New Haven, but it quickly becomes all too clear that’s not his main beef: what he’s really against is miscegenation, or what his intellectual heirs used to call “race-mixing”:
The real solution may have to wait another generation or two after which, if some who call themselves conservatives have their way, there will have been so much miscegenation there will be no more white people left to worry about.

He then cites a number of commentators who think this trend is desirable, from Michael Barone to the Socialist candidate in the French election for Prime Minister, and then snarks: “If those New Haven firemen got a raw deal, I guess their parents just married the wrong people. “
But what has miscegenation got to do with the issue he supposedly cares about, those poor oppressed white firemen? It’s not clear. What is all too clear, however, is that the real agenda of the “white nationalist” movement has zero to do with legitimate issues, such as the injustice of affirmative action. It is all about race-mixing—an “issue” that, in an age when a mulatto is president of these United States, has a certain explosive quality, as well as an aura of outright nastiness.

This is what has given the “white nationalists” a big shot in the arm, these days: the rise of Barack Obama. The neo-Nazi webmaster of “Stormfront” exulted that, as the election results began to come in, his web site, devoted to the rantings of losers living in their parents’ basement, experienced a flood of visitors. David Duke, the heir to the George Lincoln Rockwell wing of Taylor’s movement, expressed grave concern—and similarly rejoiced in the expected increase in his audience.

As the white-collar wing of the same movement, Taylor and his American Renaissance crowd are salivating as the prospect of massive recruitment because one of “them” is in the White House. They hope to infiltrate what they call the “pseudo-conservatives” with their message of genetic determinism and white supremacy, imbuing the rightist critique of Obama and all his works with a racialist tinge.

This, of course, is just what the Obamaites ordered: they would love to marginalize their opposition and banish them to the fever swamps of race-obsessed neurotics and social misfits. Nothing would please them more than to see the rising resentment of their policies ascribed to the spreading influence of racist agitators. If I were the Democratic National Committee, I’d funnel millions into Taylor’s outfit, and like-minded groups, for the same reason that the interventionists encouraged Nazi infiltration of the America First antiwar movement in the run-up to World War II.

To those who want to know why I am taking the time and energy to take on Taylor and his racialist pals, check out the section in my Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement
on the life and career of John T. Flynn, who knew all too well what the War Party was up to.

What I don’t understand, and I doubt Taylor does either, is this: what do the “white nationalists” want? What is their program? They are “nationalists” without a nation. Do they want to expel all non-whites from U.S. territory? Do they want to carve out their own ersatz “nation” in, say, the nether reaches of Idaho and the Dakotas? Do they want to create a caste system based on racial heritage, as the Nazis tried to do, with whites on top and the “mud people”—their disgusting term for non-whites—on the bottom? Or do they just want to abolish race preferences in law and custom—in which case they shed their “white nationalist” hoods and morph into white versions of Ward Connerly? Would Taylor outlaw miscegenation if he could? I have no doubt that he would, no matter what he says in public.

Americans don’t like racists, not because they have been indoctrinated by leftist professors and do-gooder social workers, but because “white nationalists” and their ilk are looking for the unearned: they want power, prestige, and money in the bank based on factors over which they had no control, that is, their genetic heritage. That’s why they spend so much time posing as amateur “scientists” and “anthropologists,” extrapolating entire theories of social organization from the results of “intelligence tests” that presume to measure the ineffable. It is a soulless, materialist, dogmatic view of life that has nothing in common with authentic conservatism, and which has all sorts of statist implications—not to mention a history of racialist-inspired statist measures—that make “white nationalism” antithetical to libertarianism.

Richard Spencer makes a big deal out of how “open-minded” and un-PC Takimag is in publishing Taylor’s tirade against “race-mixing.” I cannot share his enthusiasm. There is a good reason to avoid the Taylorites, and their even cruder brothers-in-spirit in the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazi netherworld, and it has to do with maintaining the intellectual and spiritual integrity of the American Right. I agree with Pat Buchanan, who, in pointing out the disparity between his own ideas and those of David Duke, averred: “We come from different traditions.” Indeed we do. Taylor’s is the legacy of Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant, the Count de Gobineau, and that failed portrait painter from Vienna: ours is the legacy of Christianity, which recognized the centrality of the individual soul, and rejects collectivism, including racial collectivism, as inimical to freedom, reason, and just relations among men.

“If you can’t beat ‘em,” says Taylor, “join ‘em!” The paleoconservative answer to this must be: Never!

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article...hout_a_nation/

[Alex Linder]

Note what Buchanan said to Duke, Spinstress Starr.

Might be interesting for you to comment on that.

Which side are you on, gal?

[Alex Linder]

Buchanan's tradition = individualism + universalism + mysticism = Catholicism.

[Alex Linder]

Jared Taylor’s recent posting on Takimag has drawn a number of a responses, including from Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer, both of which make some good points. I’m afraid, however, that neither really hits on the essential problem—although Gottfried does mention it in passing, almost as an afterthought—which is that Taylor’s call for whites to organize along lines of “racial solidarity” represents the most complete and abject surrender to multi-culturalism. His bid to become the white Al Sharpton is not only a massive contradiction, coming from someone who ostensibly opposes privileging individuals on account of their alleged race, it is downright pathetic.

Unbridled chutzpah. Why lie small when you can lie big, reasons the homosexual?

The founders were, to use the crude, Semito-communist agitprop expression, racist. Raimondo knows that. What's the most brazen way to deny it? To pretend that America was founded as a libertarian country, and that the Constitution and the Framers, which the queer pretends to admire, were libertarian rather than racialist.

In order to maintain his lie, Raimondo has to ignore the fact that the American people never voted to elect a new people (open borders with third world). They never voted to give niggers legal privilege over their own race. They never voted to turn foreign policy over to hebrews.

"[S]urrender to multi-culturalism" -- can you hear this twink laughing up his sleeve?

Every other race reaps giant benefits from its identify politics. Only whites, who are robbed and hectored to pay for those benefits, are supposed to manfully shoulder their burden, to never surrender in working double time so that nigger feral can afford his twenty-first bastard. Like the jews he and his bull Buchanan fear, Raimondo tries to shame whites into suicide, blasting them as immoral and cowardly for doing what every other form of life does without thinking - defend itself.

And to top it off, he's worried that WHINOs, a pitiful, near-beer, false-front version of the real thing, will scotch the nascent liber-faileo rEVOLution.

One hundred percent kosher-risible, itz.

[jimmy smith]

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/200...ns-and-paleos/

[jimmy smith]

"Discrediting the “Alternative Right” will be the first step for racialists in the years ahead. Raimondo and his associates should be confronted at every opportunity and exposed as the cowards, liars, imposters, and opportunists that they are." - Prozium

[Mark]

I’m afraid, however, that neither really hits on the essential problem—although Gottfried does mention it in passing, almost as an afterthought—which is that Taylor’s call for whites to organize along lines of “racial solidarity” represents the most complete and abject surrender to multi-culturalism.

I don't see how that makes sense. Multi-culturalism is afterall a euphemism for multi-racialism, Marxism, and the relinquishing of white power and civilization to Jews and the third world while watching their race be displaced, mongrelized, and eventually become extinct. The only real response to such a threat is militant racialism.

[PeterKramer]

Nationalists Without a Nation
by Justin Raimondo on May 28, 2009

What I don’t understand, and I doubt Taylor does either, is this: what do the “white nationalists” want? What is their program? They are “nationalists” without a nation. Do they want to expel all non-whites from U.S. territory? Do they want to carve out their own ersatz “nation” in, say, the nether reaches of Idaho and the Dakotas?

Expel all non-whites from as much of the country as we can, then take back the rest once we consolidate our power.

Not too complicated.

Taylor’s is the legacy of Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant, the Count de Gobineau, and that failed portrait painter from Vienna: ours is the legacy of Christianity, which recognized the centrality of the individual soul, and rejects collectivism, including racial collectivism, as inimical to freedom, reason, and just relations among men.

What does Christianity have to say about homosexuality, Justin?

[Alex Linder]

Raimondo, Libertarians, and Paleos

May 28th, 2009 by Prozium

Feel free to cross post this elsewhere.

As I pointed out to Evan McLaren last night, the disabling of the comment section at Takimag was about more than simple irritation with Captainchaos and friends trolling multiple threads. Justin Raimondo, John Zmirak, Paul Gottfried and others who write for that website have long held racialists in contempt (Tom Fleming at Chronicles is another) and used the opportunity created by the discord to purge our discourse from their environs.

Check out this new emotional outburst from Justin Raimondo aimed at the mild mannered Jared Taylor. Politics makes strange bedfellows. There is something odd about an atheist libertarian homosexual engaged in an interracial relationship invoking “his legacy” of Christianity and conservatism in Randroid spittle to damn racialists. Ayn Rand famously hated both of them. Lawrence Auster was correct when he pointed out the other day that libertarianism/Objectivism is the purest negation of traditional conservatism which is about the preservation of larger wholes. Libertarians and Objectivists strive to abolish/neuter/level all higher social orders (race, ethny, nation, culture, faith, family) with their prescription of anarchy and their ideological poison of radical atomistic individualism.

Sound familar? It should. Raimondo is correct when he quotes Buchanan in saying we come from different traditions. The pink banner he holds aloft is precisely the same one that was carried by the hippie/beatnik counterculture in the 50’s and 60’s, the antiwar movement of the 60’s, and the gay rights movement of the 70’s and 80’s. His social movement was pioneered during the twentieth century by radical Jews such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, F.A. Hayek, and Abbie Hoffman. It is a spiritual cousin of communism and has the same wrecking ball, destablizing, disorienting effect upon white gentile culture at all levels. Oddly enough, Raimondo manages to accuse racialists of soulless materialism when it is precisely his form of unfettered consumer capitalism and its pornographic expressivist ethos that has disfigured the American landscape from coast to coast and continues to inspire our nihilistic youth to carve out piercings and kitsch tattoos into their pale flesh on a daily basis.

In Raimondo’s mind, only the rootless, autonomous individual exists; the implication being that only individual accomplishment can be a source of pride. For him it makes no sense to take pride in one’s race, family, ethnic group, nation, faith, or culture or to be concerned with the maintenance of these collective entities. He doesn’t conceive of art or science as practices in which the individual contributes to, builds upon, orients himself toward, finds meaning in centuries old traditions. As a libertarian, Raimondo acknowledges no debt to the past. As a homosexual, he has no reason to care about the plight of future generations. All he cares about are the almost nonexistent restraints on his “liberty” in contemporary America.

The White Nationalist project is simple enough to understand. It can be boiled down to fourteen words: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” What is objectionable about that? It is nothing more than a plea for the right to exist. It is not an injunction to lord over anyone. The whole Third World is flooding into the West. In contrast, what are libertarians demanding at this historical juncture? The quioxtic abolition of the state, a state of anarchy or near lawlessness, all because the amount of freedom they now enjoy (which is near absolute) apparently isn’t enough for them to satisfy their most carnal appetites. What a pitiful, pathetic, contemptible worldview.

It should come as no surprise then that the denizens of libertarianism come from the most sordid corners of American life. Walter Block once wrote a book defending his laaisez-faire constituency: the prostitute looking to ply her trade, the drug addict in search of his next fix, the homosexual who resents being labeled deviant, the habitual litterer who disrespects public property, the slumlord who exploits the poor, the libeler who maligns others, the Jewish ursuror, the scab who breaks the picket line, the corporate shark who exports jobs overseas, the illegal alien who violates our national borders, and others amongst this case of “heroes” who stand to benefit from the end of the rule of law and final abolition of all restraint. In Raimondo’s bizarro world, the decent and indecent have switched places: the man who takes pride in his race, the man who puts the long term interest of future generations above satiating his every whim, is now to be the object of cultural opprobrium, not the libertine iconoclast who flaunts every custom, tradition, and authority in the name of his ineffable “rights.”

How on earth did a degenerate homosexual cosmopolitan like Justin Raimondo of all people come to be identified with hardcore cultural conservatives whose animating collectivist impulses are anathema to everything urbane libertines stand for? It all goes back to a “populist” political strategy first articulated by Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell over a dozen years ago: libertarians would co-opt the electoral energy and funds of the isolationist paleocons and race-conscious rednecks on the far right as a leadership class and then redirect them towards “anti-statist” ends. This electoral strategy finally bore fruit in the so-called “Ron Paul Revolution” last year which most racialists were fooled en masse into supporting.

Buchanan and the paleocons adopted a similar strategy in the 1990’s. In Buchanan’s own words, “The way to do battle with David Duke is not to go ballistic because Duke, as a teenager, paraded around in a Nazi costume to protest William Kunstler during Vietnam, or to shout to the heavens that Duke had the same number last year as the Ku Klux Klan. Everybody in Metairie knew that. The way to deal with Mr. Duke is the way the GOP dealt with the far more formidable challenge of George Wallace. Take a hard look at Duke’s portfolio of winning issues; and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles.”

Raimondo has never been able to mask his hostility towards racially conscious whites. It is a common attitude among the paleos and libertarians found outside the mainstream right. They want the page views, subscriptions, money, and votes of racialists, which they correctly perceive as a burgeoning movement ideally harnessed for their own ends, but not their input. White Nationalists are supposed to stay in their seats at the back of the far right bus while their self-imagined social betters occupy the driver seat; a situation analagous to the relationship between the GOP and evangelicals. “The rantings of losers living in their parents’ basement” are not welcome in polite company (this doesn’t include pimple faced, pudgy libertoon high school students), but by all means do send in your $100 contribution to Ron Paul’s campaign coffers and vote for him in the Republican primaries.

The White Nationalist message has never been more prescient or warranted than it is today. Its predictions are coming true. While Barack Obama appoints a professional Hispanic to the Supreme Court and distributes race-based patronage to his multitude of supporters from the White House, Raimondo counsels whites to cling to the ridiculous fantasy of colorblindness in a color conscious world; we need more “individualism,” more “liberty.” Meanwhile, the other side pushes ahead for more ”diversity,” more “multiculturalism” in every aspect of life. It’s like the Polish calvary fighting the Wehrmacht. Anyone with half a brain can see where this is going, what the end result will inevitably be for whites, unless more responsible men act.

White Nationalists need to shove aside Justin Raimondo and the rest of the libertarian fringe. Their retarded fantasy of dismembering the state is nothing but a distracting panacea. Discrediting the “Alternative Right” will be the first step for racialists in the years ahead. Raimondo and his associates should be confronted at every opportunity and exposed as the cowards, liars, imposters, and opportunists that they are.

Posted in Uncategorized
4 Responses to “Raimondo, Libertarians, and Paleos”

1.
on 28 May 2009 at 9:27 pm1notuswind

Prozium,

Great response!!

I saw Raimondo’s piece at TakiMag this morning and just knew you’d have something to say about it.

With respect to our future, the first step is for the White American to finally see through the false god of movement conservatism. My sense is that we’re less than a decade away from that happening.
2.
on 28 May 2009 at 10:07 pm2Anthony

SEPARATION OF RAUNCH AND STATE

(It’s still legal - and always God-honoring - to air messages like the following. See Ezekiel 3:18-19. In light of government backing of raunchy behavior (such offenders were even executed in early America!), maybe the separation we really need is the “separation of raunch and state”!)

In Luke 17 in the New Testament, Jesus said that one of the big “signs” that will happen shortly before His return to earth as Judge will be a repeat of the “days of Lot” (see Genesis 19 for details). So gays are actually helping to fulfill this same worldwide “sign” (and making the Bible even more believable!) and thus hurrying up the return of the Judge! They are accomplishing what many preachers haven’t accomplished! Gays couldn’t have accomplished this by just coming out of closets into bedrooms. Instead, they invented new architecture - you know, closets opening on to Main Streets where little kids would be able to watch naked men having sex with each other at festivals in places like San Francisco (where their underground saint - San Andreas - may soon get a big jolt out of what’s going on over his head!). Thanks, gays, for figuring out how to bring back our resurrected Saviour even quicker!

[If you would care to learn about the depraved human "pigpen" that regularly occurs in Nancy Pelosi's district in California, Google "Zombietime" and click on "Up Your Alley Fair" in the left column. And to think - horrors - that she is only two levels away from being President!]
3.
on 28 May 2009 at 10:48 pm3ATBOTL

Prozium, do you have any explanation for why racially conscious white Americans are always flocking to other movements rather than building their own movement? Why is there this obsession with joining pre-existing movements and organizations and why are WN so bad at taking control of the movements and organizations they join?
4.
on 28 May 2009 at 10:55 pm4Prozium

For one thing, it has a lot to do with the strength of the taboo against “racism.” WN is demonized in a way that conservatism and libertarianism are not (neither of these political tendencies are a threat to Jewish power). The lack of forward progress is undoubtedly the major reason why racialists are always joining other social movements.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/200...ns-and-paleos/

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Mark

I don't see how that makes sense.

It's not intended seriously. It's intended functionally, and its function is to deceive. As well as how racism makes sense - it doesn't. Its purpose is to shut down discussion by stigmatizing the other side of the non-debate. What is particularly brazen or clever, if you like Raimondo, is that the side he defends is the side that has surrendered. It's the man who brings a letter opener to a gunfight that has surrendered, not the man who brings an atom bomb. If Whites identify, it's all over. Not just for muds but for their bosses and puppeteers, the jews.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

It's not intended seriously. It's intended functionally, and its function is to deceive. As well as how racism makes sense - it doesn't. Its purpose is to shut down discussion by stigmatizing the other side of the non-debate. What is particularly brazen or clever, if you like Raimondo, is that the side he defends is the side that has surrendered. It's the man who brings a letter opener to a gunfight that has surrendered, not the man who brings an atom bomb. If Whites identify, it's all over. Not just for muds but for their bosses and puppeteers, the jews.

I agree, it's rhetorical nonsense. That's why I can't read most of what he writes or those like him. It's like watching a bad B movie.

[Alex Linder]

Raimondo is trying to keep up pretenses. For pales and libertoons that means the pretense that they are on the verge of some great breakthrough. All they need to do is win over a few more somethings and the rEVOLution is here. The only thing that can stop them are the tiny, powerless, losery white nationalists. Does that make sense? No. White nationalists don't threaten paloeconservatism, they laugh at it. Race is the only solid basis from which to oppose the System. If racialists are allowed to make their case openly, Raimondo and his paleo friends will be seen for the cowards and career-girls they are. That's why they have to shut down commentary at their sites, whereas we debate all parties with complete freedom and fearlessness.

We don't have to prevent libertarians and paleoconservatives from posting at VNN. We can whip their arguments. They do have to prevent us from leaving comments on their blogs. Because they can't argue against us. Their careers, their very identities and livelihoods, depend on the illusion that they are the radical alterative to the System, when in fact they are the System itself, every bit as much as the overt jew, commies, coloreds, and liberals. What is the difference between Raimondo, Gottfried and any other liberal? Trick question. There isn't one. They are the same thing. On the deeper, structurally significant questions, Pat Buchanan believes precisely the same things as Podhoretz, Frum and Foxman.

Buchanan is wrong. He ain't us. And neither is his gal twinky, the San Francisco tweet.

[Alex Linder]

What I have warned about time and time again is exactly what Buchanan advises:

Take a hard look at Duke’s portfolio of winning issues; and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles.

Translating Buchananese into reality: Republicans should steal WN thunder. Pretend to support the things they do, but in reality enrich ourselves and serve our jew masters.

[Alex Linder]

Meanwhile, the other side pushes ahead for more ”diversity,” more “multiculturalism” in every aspect of life. It’s like the Polish calvary fighting the Wehrmacht.

Yeah, except the Polish cavalry meant it, and paid with its lives. The libertarian risks nothing and reaps money and status. All he has to do is denounce WN in the same terms as his illiberal brothers - you know, the ones he pretends to fight.

[Alex Linder]

There's still a darker and more accurate interpretation of Queermondo's words, and that is that they are part of a coordinated campaign to boost the profile of the gelding Taylor and his front group. The coordinated 'attacks' on pseudo-WN must be assumed to pursure a dual purpose:

1) to discredit real WN
2) to build the profile of controlled WN, or WHINOism, and its representatives, most notably Taylor but also including Auster and various other jews and toad-eaters.

[Alex Linder]

White Nationalists need to shove aside Justin Raimondo and the rest of the libertarian fringe. Their retarded fantasy of dismembering the state is nothing but a distracting panacea. Discrediting the “Alternative Right” will be the first step for racialists in the years ahead. Raimondo and his associates should be confronted at every opportunity and exposed as the cowards, liars, imposters, and opportunists that they are.

There is no alternative right. Just endless half-hearted half-assed repackagings of the same old losers who did nothing when the kikes slit the throat of M.E. Bradford.

Truly, the only thing these queers, homo- and heterosexual, have to boast of is that they're not us! That's the only way they keep the crumbflow from Massa Yahoodi's laden table.

The faileos and libertoonis needn't be refuted for they have no arguments. Our policy toward them is to spit on them and kick them in the ass, just like their masters do. They are for laughter and amusement. They serve no other purpose - to White Nationalists.

[Alex Linder]

Taylor’s call for whites to organize along lines of “racial solidarity” represents the most complete and abject surrender to multi-culturalism.

This is like saying that a white man being attacked by a gang of niggers is cravenly surrendering if he yells to his friends to come help him.

[jimmy smith]

http://www.originaldissent.com/forum...ad.php?t=10931

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.co...ut-nation.html

[Axel Faaborg]

A melting pot boils over.

[Alex Linder]

The only roots that poovert cares about are the ones up his rectum.