Libertarians without Liberty

Posted by the Narrator... on June 02, 2009, 07:20 AM | #

Perhaps he has not noticed that it is only whites who have even imagined an individualism as pure as libertarianism. How many non-white allies has he found in his battle against the state? Does he really think Mexicans and Africans will help him dismantle state power rather than seize it for their own purposes? By ignoring race Mr. Raimondo is ensuring the failure of what I take to be his most cherished project.

-Jared Taylor

There is the kicker.

Ironic, is it not, that people like Raimondo are working hard to ensure that nationalism, racism, xenophobia and countless territorial wars will thrive in the future, even as White people cease to exist....as it is ONLY White people who fully embrace notions of “diversirty”, “equality” and “color blindness”.

“They are “nationalists” without a nation.”

A nation is not a territory, but a people.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Tuesday, June 2, 2009 at 04:49 AM

Excellent point.
I believe the Mexican president (no, not Dubya) said that wherever Mexicans were, there was Mexico.
I don’t imagine Raimondo got his panties in knot over that statement.

Raimondo asserts, “Americans don’t like racists,...

So now Americans don’t like racists?
Just the other day I read how black women are fat because of all the racism!

Everything from low test scores to the inability to swim is, we are told, caused by all of the racism.

Why, just a few months back Americans elected a racist leader and right now they’re watching as their representatives approve of a racist to the Supreme Court lest they should upset all of the racist hispanics!

And is “White Flight” now no longer considered racist?
Is it just a coincidence that White people continue to exodus away from non-Whites?

It must be a very lonely universe that Raimondo resides in.

...

Posted by danielj on June 02, 2009, 09:23 AM | #

It must be a very lonely universe that Raimondo resides in. J

Anybody as doctrinaire and puritanical as the fucking Randians screaming about “stolen concepts” and “subject primacy” and their libertarian cousins screaming other nonsense about the virtue of crack dealers and hookers filling a market niche must be extremely lonely.

They have Cassandra/Zeus complexes and there is only room for one Zeus on Olympus.

Posted by danielj on June 02, 2009, 09:30 AM | #

then goes on to excoriate Taylor for suggesting whites might wait until they become a minority and then pursue AA like everyone else.

Although the Libertarians argue all the time that it is acceptable to benefit from the state as it stands now.

Do they want to carve out their own ersatz “nation” in, say, the nether reaches of Idaho and the Dakotas?

I want to carve out a nation in the minds of millions of whites.

Great! Bloody brilliant! That is the most absolute fantastic one-liner I’ve heard since “The Nazis didn’t destroy Europe, the American Air Force did!”

Raimondo asserts, “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”.

Americans don’t like Libertarians Justin.

Posted by danielj on June 02, 2009, 09:33 AM | #

I wonder if Justin might ever find it ironic that he must constantly defend Libertarians against the charge of racism?

Posted by Dasein on June 02, 2009, 11:14 AM | #

I thought Gottfried’s reply to Taylor’s piece was rambling and boring (I enjoyed reading Raimondo’s essay just to confirm what a nullity we face in terms of ideas).  It was also repetitive, like some bizarre poem.

I’m not sure what distinguishes TakiMag from NR, except for its willingness to stand up to AIPAC.

Gottfried wrote:

Paleoconservatives, by sharp contrast, follow the European nationalists of the 1920s when they emphasize “national communities” and advocate tariffs to protect “a national work force.”

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/thinking_about_white_nationalists/

It’s true that we could learn a lot from the Conservative Revolution in post-WWI Germany.  But what’s up with ‘national community’ and the scare quotes- why not just say ethnic group or race?  This is the whole problem with the Takitypes.  They think that such a fundamental building block can be left out and whatever philosophy they adopt will still make sense.  It’s like they want a return to old-fashioned omelette making, but they won’t say ‘you need eggs to do this’.  At some point they’ll presumably run out of steam, after acquiring a pile of non-essential ideological baggage that allows them to avoid this reality.

Posted by Fiotheth on June 02, 2009, 12:11 PM | #

Nationalists without a Nation

After Raimondo gets done with the WNs in his re-education camps he is going to have his work cut out for him as he goes after Palestinians, Tibetans, the Basque…

Posted by James Bowery on June 02, 2009, 12:40 PM | #

ZZZzzzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzz....

*yawn* wha?  Libertarian what?

Oh… *yawn*…

(turning over on other side)

Wake me up with Taylor, Gottfried and Raimondo get interesting....

zzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZ....

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 02, 2009, 01:27 PM | #

For any who haven’t seen them yet, Prozium’s incisive contribution to the subject of the present log entry:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/05/28/raimondo-libertarians-and-paleos/

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/06/01/paleos-and-white-nationalists/

Posted by Armor on June 02, 2009, 01:57 PM | #

Raimondo: They are “nationalists” without a nation.
Svi.........: A nation is not a territory, but a people.
Narrator..: Excellent point.

Indeed, excellent point. Maybe Raimondo meant to say that white nationalists lack a territory and a state of their own, or they lack control of their lives… Or maybe he didn’t know what he meant.

By the way, a particular, sub-meaning of nationalism is national separatism.
For example: Quebec in relation to Canada.

Do they want to expel all non-whites from U.S. territory? (—Raimondo)

We can give him the same reply as earlier: A nation is not a territory, but a people. So, the important thing is to expel non-whites from the American nation, that is to say from the society of white people.

The territory question is something else. I think no one says that native Indians and Blacks (except recent immigrants) should be expelled from the USA. Maybe some territory can be given to Mexican immigrants too. But in any case, non-whites have no valid claim over the lives of white people. The claims of non-whites over American territory should be carefully examined before they are accepted or turned down. But their claims over the identity, the soul, the wallets, and the existence of white Americans are outrageous. And yet, it is pretty obvious that non-whites are less interested in American or European territory than in white society, which is seen as a disposable commodity.

Posted by Armor on June 02, 2009, 02:11 PM | #

J.Taylor, about the views of “white nationalists” :

[Until recently...] These views were so wide-spread, so taken for granted, so indisputable that there was no term for them. Just as there was no name for people who expected the sun to rise in the East, there was no name for people whose views are today sometimes given the clumsy term “white nationalism.”

@ Fred Scrooby:
You should write a word to Taylor and tell him to use the terms “normals” and “white normalism” !

I thought Gottfried’s reply to Taylor’s piece was rambling and boring (—Dasein)

It is rambling and boring, but it isn’t really a reply to Taylor’s yesterday’s article.
It says at the bottom: “This article was originally published on June 30, 2008.”

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 02, 2009, 06:56 PM | #

I replied to Raimondo on the spur of the moment.  Afterward I read the many replies from Taylor, Prozium, and commenters here (Soren’s thread further down with tons of comments) and others that I prefer to mine.  Pretty much everything I said had already been said elsewhere.  But, I do like that mine focuses on libertarianism.

I’m not a libertarian obviously, but I borrow a lot.  There’s something to be said for starting from the position that government should be kept as small as possible, that laws should be kept to a minimum, and that an increase in either should be as reluctant as possible.  I see no reason these ideals can’t be balanced with the good of society, which is where libertarians always go off the rails.

Posted by Matra on June 02, 2009, 07:19 PM | #

Jared Taylor:Perhaps he has not noticed that it is only whites who have even imagined an individualism as pure as libertarianism. How many non-white allies has he found in his battle against the state? Does he really think Mexicans and Africans will help him dismantle state power rather than seize it for their own purposes? By ignoring race Mr. Raimondo is ensuring the failure of what I take to be his most cherished project.

Raimondo has noticed this but doesn’t care anymore. Digging into the archives of the old Rothbard/Rockwell Report (RRR) I found ‘Nativism, Nationalism, and the Neocons’ by Justin Raimondo in the May 1994 edition pp.8-14.

JR attended a National Review summit in San Diego that was mostly about NAFTA and immigration. After listening to Jack Kemp dismissing nativists opposed to NAFTA and immigration JR said NAFTA violates US sovereignty:

I also pointed out that his use of the term “nativist” was imprecise...Most dictionaries define it as a policy of favoring natives as opposed to immigrants. Now what I asked, is wrong with that? If this be nativism, then I am a nativist and proud of it!

When confronted with opposition from the Right, neocons have one and only one strategy: start the smearing, and don’t stop. Kemp was running true to form. Complaining that the same people who opposed Nafta also wanted a crack down on immigration, he declared that this is racism.

“More than 70% of the American people want to crack down on immigration,” I said, shaking my head in wonder at a conservative leader who talks like some campus radical out of the Sixties. Are they all racists? No, it isn’t racism, or nativism, or so-called ‘isolationism,’… What we have here is just good old-fashioned American nationalism and do you have a problem with that?”

Today Justin Raimondo sounds like one of those neocons. Later in the same article he had a go at left-libertarians who support managed trade agreements like NAFTA and immigration:

As a tide of immigrants inundates the country, expanding the welfare state and adding yet another pressure group of professional victims to the electorate, these left-libertarians proclaim: open the floodgates!

That open borders would ensure the demise of liberty in this country matters not one whit to left-libertarians: all that matters is that the state should immediately stop interfering with the right of every single living being on the planet to take up residence in the United States.

Today, the typical libertarian is as politically correct as any leftist: To him, Dr.Martin Luther King is a hero, religion is dangerous nonsense, and tolerance is an essential libertarian virtue-tolerance, that is, of everything and everyone but the Relgious Right, Pat Buchanan, and those whose cultural roots predate Woodstock…

...The idea that there might be something unique about the American nation-some ineffable and perhaps unrepeatable quality or context in which liberty is nurtured-strikes him as sheer mysticism, if not outright racism. For all his polemics against egalitarianism in economics, he does not object to cultural egalitarianism. He therefore does not mind voting in the same election as a recent Nicaraguan immigrant who once cast his ballot for Daniel Ortega.

Put this way, the immigration question is brought into much sharper focus. Set against a backgrop of an expanding welfare state, the civil rights revolution, and the Bosniazation of America, the issue takes on a whole new dimension.

Though his argument is mostly aracial it is clear that Justin Raimondo fully understands what Jared Taylor is saying: If you change the population of the US through immigration libertarianism is doomed.

So what has changed in the 15 years since Raimondo wrote that article?

Also there are many unPC comments by Rothbard and Lew Rockwell throughout old editions of the RRR yet strangely few, if any, of these quotes ever turn up in the available online RRR articles at LR.com or the Mises website. Robert Locke was right about libertarians being cut from the same cloth as Marxists.

Posted by Logain on June 02, 2009, 08:56 PM | #

The only real part of Jared Taylor’s article “What Do White Nationalists Want” that I disagree with is when he said that he opposes anti-miscegenation laws because “healthy societies don’t need them.” Presumably, what he meant by this is that if it wasn’t for multiculturalism and egalitarianism hardly anyone would date or marry across racial lines.  I dispute this notion.  While it is true that ethnic nepotism and genetic similarity theory show us that we prefer our co-ethnics as romantic partners, this doesn’t mean that intermarriage would ever be uncommon in a multiracial society.  In fact, history shows us that the opposite is true. 

Latin America is a good example of this.  The Spanish who colonized the region were convinced of there own superiority to both the natives and the African slaves that they brought with them.  However, this fairly strong racial consciousness still didn’t prevent them from intermixing with the two non-white populations.  Indeed, the miscegenation was so great that a majority of the people in contemporary Latin America are of mixed race - to varying degrees.

And of course the Spanish Empire is only one example of the fact that when different races inhabit the same territory they will always mix together if allowed to do so.  I could give many more examples of this from the dawn of man to contemporary times.

In fact, in the long run anti-miscegenation laws might even be insufficient.  It could be that the only way to truly prevent the amalgamation of the races is through reproductive isolation.  That is the view of many people, including Richard McCulloch, who once wrote in American Renaissance magazine that “if reproductive isolation is lost, the different races will intermix and blend into one race, destroying their racially unique traits. It is a simple matter of either-or: Either there is reproductive isolation or there is racial destruction.”

But one thing is for certain:  in a country as diverse as America free association will most certainly lead to the oblivion of white people - and in the not-too-distant future.  We should recognize this fact no matter how many people it offends.

Posted by Frank on June 02, 2009, 09:25 PM | #

Anti-amalgamation laws might be useful, but it seems they’re bad marketing atm. I imagine everyone here is firmly opposed to mixing. I would disown any child or relative of mine that mixed to be sure.

Once WN becomes more popular, then perhaps men like Taylor will be on board with anti-mixing laws.

Posted by Valerian on June 02, 2009, 09:38 PM | #

Armor:

The territory question is something else. I think no one says that native Indians and Blacks (except recent immigrants) should be expelled from the USA. Maybe some territory can be given to Mexican immigrants too. But in any case, non-whites have no valid claim over the lives of white people. The claims of non-whites over American territory should be carefully examined before they are accepted or turned down. But their claims over the identity, the soul, the wallets, and the existence of white Americans are outrageous. And yet, it is pretty obvious that non-whites are less interested in American or European territory than in white society, which is seen as a disposable commodity.

In the end, thanks to rampant illegal immigration and “legal” immigration from the 3rd World, Southern California, as one example, is going to inevitably split between the various non-white factions (including Mexicans) here and I don’t believe Whites should even be in this god-forsaken place anymore in the first place. For anyone here that lives in Southern California or for anyone that’s visited SoCal I am sure you got the impression that this place is a Modern Cesspool that lacks any vitality or spirit; Whites need to reside in a place that can be considered “sacred” or a “hearth”. Most European countries have the advantage of having a sacral identity or a strong Tradition that the people their can attune themselves too, SoCal offers no such possibilities. If Whites stay here then 3 situations are going to arise in the foreseeable future:

1). The remaining Whites will be caught up in a Bloody civil war that will fracture the remaining White holdings and create a Yugoslavia type scenario where enemies are not very far from each other.

2). The children or the survivors of the White race in this area will be subjected to psychological trauma and grow up in a place where the “struggle for survival” will be paramount and not contained like in Traditional societies.

3). The ecology of the area is foul as it is and will be more akin to a wasteland when civil war breaks out and the remaining Whites will live in an environment that’s not conducive to the upbringing of the individual and the community.

There is a foreseeable scenario where Whites can try to exterminate all the non-whites from this region but it would be a huge cost to both sides and really this place is not worth fighting for. Though I put the blame on Jews and and other Marxist elites for the ideas and world-views they inculcated into the European masses here the fact is is that the Whites let themselves be in this situation and it’s their world-views that have helped to make this place into a wasteland. My advice for people in this part of the State: get out of here as fast as you can and consolidate territory in the Northwest or areas outside of this region and build momentum there for a new society. That’s why at the end of this year I myself will head to Oregon and get acclimated to a more naturalistic lifestyle and I will have the chance to warn people up there about this place.

Posted by Dasein on June 02, 2009, 09:44 PM | #

Anti-amalgamation laws might be useful, but it seems they’re bad marketing atm. I imagine everyone here is firmly opposed to mixing. I would disown any child or relative of mine that mixed to be sure.

One positive of not having such a law is that it allows those who have no ethnic loyalty to leave.  This could be considered a form of eugenics, and MacDonald mentions this in his trilogy with regards to Jews who leave the community.  The key is the ‘one drop rule’ (though I realize for some groups a drop or two might be considered ok).  Miscegenators have to understand that their children cannot be part of our community.

Posted by Frank on June 02, 2009, 09:45 PM | #

Valerian,

you don’t like the Appalachians?

Posted by Dasein on June 02, 2009, 09:48 PM | #

And yet, it is pretty obvious that non-whites are less interested in American or European territory than in white society, which is seen as a disposable commodity. --Armor

This reminds me something Norman Lowell said at the New Right conference in London.  He suggested that to get land for Whites in South Africa, you would just need to attract Negroes with free food.  Each year you keep shifting the farms (or distribution centres) a bit north.  I’m not sure if that is a completely accurate account of his idea, but it was something to that effect.

Posted by Dasein on June 02, 2009, 10:02 PM | #

Taylor’s reply to Raimondo is overall good (boilerplate AmRen), but I disagree with the following:

Loyalties of this kind are not rational but they are no less powerful for this reason. I love my own children more than I love the children of strangers, not because they are objectively superior but because they are mine. No one disputes my right to this irrational loyalty—nor should they dispute my right to an equally irrational, equally deep and genetic loyalty to my extended family.

What he means is idiosyncratic, not irrational.  Based on quite sound premises (kin selection, EGI), his loyalty is completely rational.

Posted by Frank on June 02, 2009, 10:25 PM | #

One positive of not having such a law is that it allows those who have no ethnic loyalty to leave.

Children don’t know what they’re doing until after they’re married and with young children in their 20s. Until then they’re horny, naive, and generally clueless. By the time they’re aware of what they’re doing, it’s too late.

But you’re right, there must be a cultural preventative against it. Laws won’t be respected if people view them as archaic and pointless. And it’s very possible for a society to function without detailed laws on every matter - a people can have a partially unwritten Constitution which rejects those who are mixed or they can be separate from civil society as a nation as one-component-among-many within a state.

Posted by Valerian on June 02, 2009, 10:31 PM | #

Valerian,

you don’t like the Appalachians?

Never been there but I’ve seen pictures of it’s beauty. Who knows, maybe I might move there instead of Oregon or maybe if I’m really nauseated, Deutschland.

Posted by Frank on June 02, 2009, 10:33 PM | #

That should read “the parents in their 20s” not the children. Late 20s or early 30s is probably when people mature, though really we continue to mature until senility or death…

Haha, I VERY MUCH like Norman Lowell’s recommendation. It sounds similar to the BNP idea of helping aliens to return home. There’s no need for direct confrontation to resolve all problems (though sometimes of course there’s no other option, ie. when they’re attacking), even if some folks dream only of glorious war… More would like the idea of nationalism if it didn’t involve bloody war and references to WWII, which is how the anti-Europeans always portray nationalism.

What he means is idiosyncratic, not irrational.  Based on quite sound premises (kin selection, EGI), his loyalty is completely rational.

I frequently use the term “irrational” as Taylor did. You might be right, but it is commonplace to use the word as such. Maybe this is a custom that should be changed.

Posted by Frank on June 02, 2009, 10:46 PM | #

Valerian,

the deepest roots for me would be Britain, but I’m planning on sticking it out in the states. Truly it’s vital to the states that Europe survive.

“Ehud_would” wrote on his blog (which now req an invitation to view? Luckily I quoted part of it...):

Naturally, I feel a certain affinity, or some would say sentimentality, toward all things Germanic and Celtic. But it does not make me a German-Dane or a Scotsman. I mean really, just imagine if I went to one of those little postcard hamlets in Denmark and simply declared myself a Dane. As sweet-natured as the Danes are, the women would likely snicker at my cowboy accent and the men would glare with furrowed brows and chide me with all the stoicism which northmen command. The Danes would appreciate the continuum of my commonality with them to be sure but they would never confess me one of them, a Dane proper.

The question then is, ought I to take offense at such exclusion? Certainly not. It is their right and their duty to preserve themselves with all the unique characteristics which make them who they are. And really, I wouldn’t have it any other way because if they lost definition of who they are, I, as an offshoot of that people, would lose reference to my own ancestors.

And contiguous with earlier Puritan law, the very first convention of the Congress of the United States of America declared that citizenship was open only to “free Whites” of good character residing in America for two or more years.

The ‘Americanism’ of our founding was based not upon a government structure or economic theory but upon the nation which formed it. That nation existed prior to the United States and as such, their chief concern lay not in the principles of a government but in the preservation of ‘[them]selves and [their] posterity forever.’

And in the new world we members of the White race be one expanded Anglophile nation in our lesser tribes throughout. We are who we are; let us cherish that identity and safeguard it as our fathers who went before us. And let us think ill of no other people for doing likewise.

Some get mad when I quote their full articles elsewhere, but too often when I fail to the articles go up missing either due to hackings, new invitation reqs, or just general apathy/other problems.

Posted by Don on June 02, 2009, 11:11 PM | #

Here’s what we sent to Justin last Thursday:

----- Original Message -----
From: Donald Miller
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:08 PM
Subject: no tribe for whites, a tribe for everyone else

Hello, I just read your essay about, for want of a better term, white tribalism.  So let me ask you this.

When the diverse white American peoples are bashed consistently in media & entertainment as a monolithic & evil ethnicity, don’t you think that someday they’ll get the idea that they have to tribalize, too?  Who is defending them from discrimination & vilification?

When Euro-Americans are literally denied the opportunity in most print media to rebut slurs in the same way that every other ethnicity is allowed, don’t you think that they will get the idea that they have to tribalize, too?

You’ve wandered into a thicket of issues and, while your defense of a unitary America is valuable, it will soon be recognized as a type of false consciousness.  There is no unitary America any more.  Asking white people to accept the accusations that are their daily fare is to ask them to tribalize.  It’s too bad.

Don

Posted by Svigor on June 02, 2009, 11:13 PM | #

I wouldn’t make a stink over anti-miscegenation laws if I lived under them, but I truly don’t like the idea, and I find it unnecessary.  This isn’t posturing.

Given a white county, state, etc., what would be the point?  If a person goes outside the territory to miscegenate, what business is it of mine?  If that person wants to live with a non-white or bear or raise non-white children, he’ll have to emigrate.  If he wants to brag about his flouting of local standards, that’s not miscegenation, it’s something else.

On this question I assume that we’re talking about a healthy-minded white populace, within which miscegenation would be a target of ridicule and ostracism.  There will be no non-whites around to miscegenate with.  What would be the point of making it illegal?

On the other hand, we already restrict people’s preferences and there’s no good reason for an ethnic nationalist to consider anti-miscegenation laws unjust.

Posted by Svigor on June 02, 2009, 11:26 PM | #

don’t you think that someday they’ll get the idea that they have to tribalize, too?  Who is defending them from discrimination & vilification?

A good point that I intended to make but did not (the paragraph responding to the relative justice of pursuing white or black interests was written last and I just wanted it done by that point).

If you take on a victim mentality you’ll soon become a victim.  That’s the not-so-subtle message I get when people say whites aren’t justified in pursuing their own interests - that wemust first unilaterally surrender and have our asses kicked for a few hundred years if we want to be justified in pursuing our interests.

WTF?  Does that work on a personal level?  Then why should it work on a racial level?

“Hey mister uh, my wife left me, and I got fired, so you should pay for my drinks, meal, and the tip, and put gas in my car too.”

Posted by Svigor on June 02, 2009, 11:30 PM | #

Not to belabor the point, but it really is breathtaking, the underlying message there:

A group of losers has the right to pursue its interests, but a group of winners does not.

But, uhm, isn’t refusing to pursue your interests the fast-track to loser status?

Crickets chirping…

Posted by Frank on June 02, 2009, 11:31 PM | #

If that person wants to live with a non-white or bear or raise non-white children, he’ll have to emigrate.

That’s pretty much the same thing. As you say, what’s done outside the state/nation/community isn’t of anyone’s concern so long as it doesn’t affect said state.

Posted by Frank on June 02, 2009, 11:35 PM | #

If you take on a victim mentality you’ll soon become a victim.  That’s the not-so-subtle message I get when people say whites aren’t justified in pursuing their own interests - that wemust first unilaterally surrender and have our asses kicked for a few hundred years if we want to be justified in pursuing our interests.

How much longer does it have to go on before we’ve paid for our sins? What’s going on now is surely one of the most significant events of all time. A great race or suprarace of people is being wiped out within a century. We’ve sustained relatively huge losses since the post-WWII insanity began.

Posted by J Richards on June 02, 2009, 11:36 PM | #

Svyatoslav Igorevich,

Maybe Raimondo’s been crusading against war so long, he no longer understands its most basic concepts, ones which don’t give children problems. Perhaps he’s so far gone, he’s opposed to war even in self-defense.

The antiwar website is the controlled opposition of the warmongers (the Jewish crime network).

The interesting thing is that just before you wrote this, you said:

If generals could start every invasion by ensuring the enemy first laid down arms, they would do so. If they could encourage in the enemy the idea that taking up arms and fighting against the invasion is “surrender,” they would do so. If they could pay people like Raimondo to encourage this idea amongst the enemy, they would do so.

What do you think Raimondo is doing?  His ilk should be exposed as controlled opposition.

Posted by Frank on June 02, 2009, 11:42 PM | #

Raimondo is a lot of things, but he’s not pro-Jewish… He’s strongly critical of Israel and even broke some of the early stories on 9/11 (reg. the Israelis found near the site on that day).

I guess what you mean is he’d still be supported by these people, but I remain doubtful. He’d be preferred by to someone like Buchanan, but there are a lot of alternatives that could be offered up. Raimondo doesn’t toe any line on Israel.

Posted by Frank on June 02, 2009, 11:46 PM | #

Aside from hosting a large variety of criticism on Israel, Raimondo also defended Putin, whom Israelis and Jews in general hate. When Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with plutonium, Raimondo came out strong in defense of Putin, saying Putin was framed. Cui bono? Raimondo asked. And Raimondo answered: not Putin.

It’s absurd to imagine Jews are behind everything. They’re simply one power among many, albeit atm they’re probably akin to the English during the British Empire. But empires fall though.

Posted by J Richards on June 03, 2009, 12:36 AM | #

Frank,

Do you realize what controlled opposition is?  It wouldn’t work with no criticism of the opposition.  But look at his criticism: it’s weak and ineffective.  You have provided an example of his weak criticism.  Raimondo broke some of the early stories of Israelis found celebrating near the WTC wreckage.  But what about the later stories … when it became evident that Israel had planned and orchestrated 9/11?  What happened to Raimondo?  Why doesn’t he explain the monstrous false flag that was used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? 

Raimondo knows very well that the white nationalist bloc is strongly anti-war.  America has no need to be involved in any wars minus the Jewish control of its government and Jewish-orchestrated false flag operations.  So why not ally oneself in an informal manner with the white nationalist bloc to end the wars Raimondo is ostensibly opposed to and solely for this purpose?  Read his hysterical response to Jared Taylor, among other things, to get a clue.  It has been written by the enemy, and I’m not talking about the enemy of white nationalism. 

And please don’t bring in the straw man that Jews are behind everything.

Posted by Tanstaafl on June 03, 2009, 01:18 AM | #

Taylor should have used “instinctual” rather than “irrational”. Instinct is pre-rational. Irrational has negative connotations, denoting something that goes against reason. There’s nothing irrational about favoring distant relations over far more distant strangers. Quite the opposite.

Thanks to Frank for quoting that bit cribbed from Ehud_would. Of course it’s mainly parasites who are terrified of exclusion.

As for cribbing… though I’d like to copy and save almost everything Svigor writes I make due with a few choice bits here and there.

Posted by Fiotheth on June 03, 2009, 01:54 AM | #

What’s going on now is surely one of the most significant events of all time. A great race or suprarace of people is being wiped out within a century. We’ve sustained relatively huge losses since the post-WWII insanity began.

Hopefully the current state of affairs will not continue much longer.  Really the main thing that keeps the top from blowing off the pressure cooker here in the States is pressure relief valve of White Flight. In this very thread are Whites posting about leaving California (and one certainly doesn’t blame them.  Between vacationing in CA in the ‘80s, and living in San Francisco for 5 years one can see it is totally degenerate)

One fears that Whites will just keep retreating to Idaho and Montana (or Appalachia or Mid-West for East Coasters) for another generation instead of doing the right thing and pursuing their EGI.  Ugh.

The State of the economy is one of the things that is actively working against lemmings keeping their blinders on though. 

The truly sad thing is that there were lots of people who warned about this stuff happening even before WW2.  The likes of Lothrop Stoddard (The Rising Tide of Color) and Oswalt Spenger ( The Coloured World Revolution ) immediately come to mind.

Posted by Frank on June 03, 2009, 02:19 AM | #

The antiwar website is the controlled opposition of the warmongers (the Jewish crime network).

It’s absurd to imagine Jews are behind everything.

And please don’t bring in the straw man that Jews are behind everything.

What I mean is he does not come across as in any way associated with the relevant Jewish groups. It appears to me to be seeing Jews where none exist, hence my statement that ”t’s absurd to imagine Jews are behind everything”.

Yeah Raimondo isn’t exactly the sort a Jew dreams up in his spare time.  But, I wouldn’t go so far as to call him incorruptible either - I don’t know either way.

Posted by travis bickle on June 03, 2009, 02:34 AM | #

Justin Raimondo is a homo. Antiwar.com is useless. Libertarians are wasting their time. Go BNP!

Posted by Svigor on June 03, 2009, 02:35 AM | #

Oh, I object to a lot of J Richard’s rhetoric, but I have to endorse his use of “Jewish Crime Network.” Not so much in terms of precise verbiage, but in the spirit of that message.  Jews should be thought of very much as a much slicker version of Sicilians.

Americans can relate to this, I think.  They may be muddle-headed as all hell when it comes to race and ethnicity, but the vast majority of whites understand the proper connotations of “Sicilian” and we should do what we can to transfer that identification to Jews, as it’s entirely apt.s

Posted by Frank on June 03, 2009, 02:55 AM | #

Yes, it achieves the same effect without having to dictate personal relationships.

But the difference isn’t semantics - I’d much rather have people who want to miscegenate leaving than sticking around lobbying for their exotic preferences.

When Taylor and I made reference to the anti-miscegenation laws, we were thinking as they apply to nonwhites living among whites, as is the case today. We work with them, we go to school with them, and increasingly we live with them. By law we cannot reject this in most cases.

In the ideal, I’m sure everyone would prefer fully white communities and societies. And those who do wish to bring in immigrants or intermarry or otherwise pursue immoral actions that would seriously threaten the state should be expelled. In the case of intermarriage thoug, someone might later reject the alien love and return alone, and other reasonable adjustments could obviously be made where justified.

Posted by Frank on June 03, 2009, 02:59 AM | #

Svigor,

I haven’t met many Sicilians (though I’m somewhat familiar with them from reading), but Gypsies are an excellent example. They’ve stolen from a lot of people.

Posted by Texan on June 03, 2009, 03:13 AM | #

but Gypsies are an excellent example.

For a number of reasons. MacDonald writes about this in the preface of A People that Shall Dwell Alone. Gypsies have a similar level of ethnocentrism as do Jews, with a very different set of moral codes for dealing with in-group and out-group members. They’ve also vigorously resisted assimilation.

Jews are high-IQ gypsies.

Posted by Ben Tillman on June 03, 2009, 05:13 AM | #

While it is true that ethnic nepotism and genetic similarity theory show us that we prefer our co-ethnics as romantic partners, this doesn’t mean that intermarriage would ever be uncommon in a multiracial society.  In fact, history shows us that the opposite is true. 

Latin America is a good example of this.  The Spanish who colonized the region were convinced of there own superiority to both the natives and the African slaves that they brought with them.  However, this fairly strong racial consciousness still didn’t prevent them from intermixing with the two non-white populations.  Indeed, the miscegenation was so great that a majority of the people in contemporary Latin America are of mixed race - to varying degrees.

I agree with you regarding the need to prohibit miscegenation; however, I dispute your account of Latin American history.  The “Spanish” who colonized Latin America were largely Jewish and, in the case of the most-populous Latin American country, from Portugal.  The reason that their “fairly strong racial consciousness still didn’t prevent them from intermixing with the two non-white populations”, was that they didn’t bring any of their own women with them.  The reason they didn’t bring their own women was—presumably—that the Jewish contingent among the settlers recognized then what Earl Raab recognizes today:  gentile diversity is Jewish strength.  Mexico and Brasil are mestizo nations because the founders wanted it that way.

Posted by Al Ross on June 03, 2009, 05:32 AM | #

Ben Tillman is totally correct. When the Marquis of Pombol was Brazil’s colonial governor he initiated a scheme whereby land was granted to Portuguese settlers who married indigenous people.

Amusingly enough, this fact was imparted to me by the Brazilian ambassador to the country in which I am currently resident in a vain attempt to impress me with the long-standing nature of Brazilian ‘tolerance’.

His European features contorted with indignation when I asked him why the Marquis thought that there were so many Europeans in Brazil that their future numbers had to be curtailed by government-financed miscegenation.

Posted by Brazil on June 03, 2009, 07:40 AM | #

Amusingly enough, this fact was imparted to me by the Brazilian ambassador to the country in which I am currently resident in a vain attempt to impress me with the long-standing nature of Brazilian ‘tolerance’.

Brazilian ambassadors know everything, obviously.

What is more interesting is that that “jew-founded” country actually opted to whiten itself in the late 19th century by encouraging the immigration of German settlers.  In practise they got more Poles and Italians, but in this case it’s the thought that counts.

Posted by the Narrator... on June 03, 2009, 08:13 AM | #

you don’t like the Appalachians?

Never been there but I’ve seen pictures of it’s beauty. Who knows, maybe I might move there instead of Oregon or maybe if I’m really nauseated, Deutschland

Posted by Valerian on June 02, 2009, 10:31 PM

The Appalachian region is fine now (predominantly White) but it’s landlocked and surrounded on all sides by increasing numbers of blacks, hispanics, asians and various mystery-meat combos.

If we should be inclined to congregate to a specific area then the North-East would be preferable. New England, northern New York, Maine and up into New Brunswick, Quebec and southern Ontario.
Sure, it would be a fight, but in a hypothetical situation wherein we migrate to a central location it would be a fight regardless.
And the North East has the advantage that the North West doesn’t. Namely, facing the Atlantic -across which lies approx. 670 million White people in Europe-.
In the North-East we’d find ourselves with about 300 million colored mixes in front of us and about 3 billion Asians behind us (across the Pacific). 

Yeah Raimondo isn’t exactly the sort a Jew dreams up in his spare time.
Posted by Svigor on June 03, 2009, 02:30 AM

What is Raimondo anyway?
At best he falls into the ‘kinda-sorta-maybe-white’ category.

I wouldn’t make a stink over anti-miscegenation laws if I lived under them, but I truly don’t like the idea, and I find it unnecessary.  This isn’t posturing.

Given a white county, state, etc., what would be the point?  If a person goes outside the territory to miscegenate, what business is it of mine?

Posted by Svigor on June 02, 2009, 11:13 PM |

Well, since we’re talking about a hypothetical future White Nation....I don’t think we have to sell anti-miscegenation laws upfront, but they could certainly be made into law after such a nation would be formed. In North America (America, Canada and Mexico), anyway. Because Whites only make up about 48% of the population of N. America, and that percentage looks to drop dramatically, in the near future anyway.
And as we’re probably only going to get around 60% of Whites to side with us, we will be facing a situation where North America will resemble a cross between the Balkans and the middle-east. We will share a continent with tens of millions of blacks, tens of million of hispanics, tens of millions of asians, millions of various other tribes and combos and tens of million of White traitors.

And as we can neither foresee nor control what future generations of our people will face (wars, invasions, temporary, yet necessary, alliances with various other groups, etc...) the Founders of a White nation must, at the outset, impress upon the hearts and minds of our people the absolute importance of the survival of their race.

Miscegenation should be seen as the most reprehensible, vile and despicable act that a man could ever engage in.
It should be viewed as The Sin, of which no forgiveness can be granted and only the most severe of punishment is to be measured out ( up to and including the complete removal of the person’s memory from society; their name, history, personal effects, records, papers, family connections etc...)

If that sounds extreme to some people then they’ve not comprehended the precariousness of our current situation.
Right now Whites in the New World stand on the absolute brink of annihilation.

A potential White Nation must have a solid foundation upon which the preservation of our people can confidently reside.

...

...

Posted by Al Ross on June 03, 2009, 08:27 AM | #

Of course, for you silver (Brazil), in the matter of Brazilian history and everything else pertaining to Aryans, to misquote the poet Burns, “The best laid plans of mice and Whites gang aft agley” thus gratifying your miserable and perverse world view.

Posted by Lurker on June 03, 2009, 09:37 AM | #

Silver was commenting at Sailer’s the other day. Someone drew attention to a comment he made about speaking Greek. An ethnicity I don’t think he has claimed before. Though I lose track…

Posted by Frank on June 03, 2009, 12:10 PM | #

the Narrator,

What is Raimondo anyway?
At best he falls into the ‘kinda-sorta-maybe-white’ category.

No idea. He doesn’t look northwest European.

Miscegenation should be seen as the most reprehensible, vile and despicable act that a man could ever engage in.
It should be viewed as The Sin, of which no forgiveness can be granted and only the most severe of punishment is to be measured out ( up to and including the complete removal of the person’s memory from society; their name, history, personal effects, records, papers, family connections etc...)

If that sounds extreme to some people then they’ve not comprehended the precariousness of our current situation.
Right now Whites in the New World stand on the absolute brink of annihilation.

Though it sounds odd to add it now, genetic engineering will become an issue too. While the mongrel empires are “engineering” (trial and error experimenting on) their subjects, we’ll retain an identity. So, they won’t even be descended from Adam-and-Eve really but rather man made. It’s advanced this far at present.

Despite how odd it sounds, especially to a conservative leaning crowd, that’s going to be a significant and possibly potent technology. People will surely become very interested in genetic heritage as a result, and this absurdity of how the human soul is somehow overlooked when racial reality is faced will surely disappear.

The Appalachian region is fine now (predominantly White) but it’s landlocked and surrounded on all sides by increasing numbers of blacks, hispanics, asians and various mystery-meat combos.

If we should be inclined to congregate to a specific area then the North-East would be preferable. New England, northern New York, Maine and up into New Brunswick, Quebec and southern Ontario.
Sure, it would be a fight, but in a hypothetical situation wherein we migrate to a central location it would be a fight regardless.
And the North East has the advantage that the North West doesn’t. Namely, facing the Atlantic -across which lies approx. 670 million White people in Europe-.
In the North-East we’d find ourselves with about 300 million colored mixes in front of us and about 3 billion Asians behind us (across the Pacific). 

It’s hilly though and more old stock, which I like. And if the NE remains, then maybe it’d have a sea route. Maybe the Jews will keep NY open even if the rest of the NE remains hippie and insists on importing diversity.

I really haven’t looked closely at all that though.

I rather like the East Asians because many of them are relatively pure. Proud races should have something in common relative to the mongrel hordes that threaten us all. The East Asians are civilised, and increasingly Christian - though “Christian” nowadays too often means universalist Babelite.

Posted by Frank on June 03, 2009, 12:33 PM | #

I guess China and Russia will inevitably battle for territory, and we’d obviously side with Russia, in spirit if not capable of much actual aid.

And archaeology puts the Chinese at odds with their whiter subjects who believe themselves to be possible founders of China’s civilisation. Regardless, I still like them.

The overall global conflict seems very much as between the civilised, relatively pure races and the barbaric, mongrel hordes seeking to destroy the world. It’s the Æsir v. the Jötunn, the ancient northern tribes v. the mongrel Romans, or the Athenians v. the Atlantians - I hate to use a Christian reference since it doesn’t fully apply imo. Frank Salter’s pan-nationalism again seems potent. While we and the East Asians will mutually care for preserving our own people, the others won’t find that so important, though hopefully in reaction they’d develop their own pride too.

Posted by Ben Tillman on June 03, 2009, 01:30 PM | #

the deepest roots for me would be Britain, but I’m planning on sticking it out in the states.

Are you in South Carolina? 

Raimondo is a lot of things, but he’s not pro-Jewish…

I believe he has some Jewish ancestry, perhaps 1/4, and I recall at least one Jewish pundit teasing him about that ancestry by calling him Dennis (his given name), presumably becuase there are more Jewish Dennises than Justins.

Posted by Frank on June 03, 2009, 01:56 PM | #

Are you in South Carolina? 

Of course. But as opposed to Germany I look back to Britain - ah British-centric.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 03, 2009, 02:03 PM | #

Miscegenation should be seen as the most reprehensible, vile and despicable act that a man could ever engage in.  It should be viewed as The Sin, of which no forgiveness can be granted and only the most severe of punishment is to be measured out ( up to and including the complete removal of the person’s memory from society; their name, history, personal effects, records, papers, family connections etc...) If that sounds extreme to some people then they’ve not comprehended the precariousness of our current situation.  Right now Whites in the New World stand on the absolute brink of annihilation.  (—The Narrator)

I endorse that.  I wouldn’t have five years ago.  I damn well do now.

Posted by Matra on June 03, 2009, 06:27 PM | #

What is Raimondo anyway?
At best he falls into the ‘kinda-sorta-maybe-white’ category.

In my earlier post I quoted an old Raimondo column on immigration. From that same article:

Norman Podhoretz had been standing there, listening to all this. Suddenly he turned to me and said:"What is your background, anyway? Where do your people come from?” While cheerfully admitting to my Italian ancestry…

According to Effra/Amalek Raimondo is quarter Jewish but I don’t recall him presenting any evidence.  He’s certainly not pro-Israel but his dispute with the Zionist neocons and neolibs is too bitchy to believe it is all about geopolitics. However, it is the case that in foreign conflicts Antiwar.com always sides with the ethnic group or nation that is seen as an opponent of US allies: Serbs over Muslims in the Balkans; Muslims over Hindus in India; Arabs over Israelis; Russians over Ukrainians, Georgians; and mainland China over Taiwan.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 03, 2009, 08:46 PM | #

Impressive detective work all around by Matra.  He did lots of searches and reading to pull all that stuff up (see his comment just above and his earlier longer one in this thread).

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 03, 2009, 08:52 PM | #

Historically, miscegenation is allowed/prohibited as it served the interest of the governing/moneyed class. The Irish plantations were one example. The earlier Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland (at the behest of the then Roman pope and financed by the Jews William brought to England) was largely male and intermarriage with the native Irish occurred. However, the Normans, or “Old English” were Gaelicised and stood against Elizabeth’s desires to expand the plantations in Munster (the Desmond Rebellions). Cromwell prohibited intermarriage in order to promote an allegiance to English interests in Northern Ireland.

Hibernia Girl:

The Plantations of Ulster in the early seventeenth century involved the migration of something like 120,000 Scots and English settlers to Ulster—men and women (i.e. families). The population of the island at the time was probably around 1 million—so the Ulster settlers amounted to 12% of the total population. (Compare that to the numbers of immigrants we have today in the Republic of Ireland alone: 13-15%.)

While there has, indeed, been some amount of intermarriage between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland down through the centuries, it has, so far, not been enough to erase the distinct genetic “boundaries” between the two groups. Even up ‘til today, significant differences can be seen in the physical characteristics of the two groups (see here and here for examples)—differences that clearly indicate 1) differing genes and/or frequencies of genes within the two groups, and 2) that the two groups have not interbred all that much.

Because of the bringing together of these diverse groups and the subsequent lack of intermarriage between them, Northern Ireland, Ireland and Britain has been beset for generations by “The Troubles” or variations thereof.

http://hiberniagirl.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-irish-and-british-should-understand.html

The same pattern existed in the American South and South Africa. Rhodes and his Jewish partners encouraged Bantu migration to work in the gold and diamond mines. Miscegenation was legal and only became an issue when labour, both black and white was unionised, and rioted shortly after WWII. It was then than apartheid was introduced in order to ensure the white/Jewish ruling class were protected by a white yeomanry who were led to believe that they shared common cause with the ruling class of South Africa.

Posted by Frank on June 03, 2009, 09:14 PM | #

Ben Tillman,

Valerian: Never been there but I’ve seen pictures of it’s beauty. Who knows, maybe I might move there instead of Oregon or maybe if I’m really nauseated, Deutschland.

Frank: the deepest roots for me would be Britain, but I’m planning on sticking it out in the states. Truly it’s vital to the states that Europe survive.

Frank: Ehud_Wud: if they lost definition of who they are, I, as an offshoot of that people, would lose reference to my own ancestors.

Ben Tillman: Are you in South Carolina? 

Frank: Of course. But as opposed to Germany I look back to Britain - ah British-centric.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 03, 2009, 10:36 PM | #

Hans-Herman Hoppe makes the libertarian case against immigration.

Brimelow writes:

The most obviously troubling problem from a libertarian perspective is the notion that support for free trade necessitates support for free immigration.

Some of the answer to this is clear from the preceding section. Imported goods are not people. Their arrival in a society is not subsidized by the taxpayer. Imported goods do not have implications for future transfer payments, much less freedom of speech. And, of course, imported goods don’t vote.

Also, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has pointed out, imported goods differ from immigrants in that they are imported by someone who wants them. Both buyers and sellers volunteer for the transaction. But immigration is a unilateral decision by the immigrant. He arrives even if the host community does not want him. Arguably, he is trespassing. Government immigration policy amounts to what Hoppe calls “forced integration.”

Of course, you can have situations where an employer wants to import labor, usually cheaper labor, but his neighbors or the community at large don’t want him to. In the end, this raises the question of the legitimacy of collective action, which I’ll discuss later.

But there is also a practical point. The way immigration works in the welfare/transfer state like the US is that employers are privatizing profits from imported labor and socializing costs, such as education, health care etc. Obviously, this is indefensible for libertarians—but you don’t hear many American libertarians talking about it.

Libertarians would presumably agree that in a regime where property was completely private, property owners could exclude whomever they chose. This is actually what happened to Friedrich von Hayek. He was refused permission [PDF] to buy land in the Tyrolese village where he had spent his summers for many years on the grounds that the community did not want to sell to foreigners. Hayek thought this was perfectly reasonable—evidence that he, at least, had some sense of collective action.

(I say “libertarians would presumably agree” because private property in the U.S. is trammeled by public policy. For example, you can’t place a restrictive covenant on who your property can be sold to, part of the general assault on freedom of association that came with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. (Much earlier in Canada with the Drummond Wren case organised, financed and fought by official Jewry). Again, because of the general US hysteria about “racism”, this isn’t something that most American libertarians want to talk about, although from a theoretical point of view, it’s indefensible.)

What about property that is owned by the government i.e. most of the country? There is a libertarian argument that no-one, even foreigners, can be forbidden access to that. But Hans-Hermann Hoppe has countered that these public goods are actually held in common by taxpaying citizens, hence a species of private property.

http://www.vdare.com/pb/080604_immigration.htm

Posted by Frank on June 04, 2009, 12:19 AM | #

Ben Tillman,

CWNY:

It was the mid-1970’s. I had been in Italy, Greece, and France and found those countries to be beautiful. The Parthenon was fascinating, the Pieta and the Sistine Chapel were moving, and the Louvre in Paris was magnificent. But nothing in Southern Europe affected me as much as the mere act of stepping on British soil did. I felt like Mole in The Wind in the Willows (Chapter 5, Dulce Domum): I was home. I was in the country of Shakespeare, Kipling, Scott, Grahame, Dickens, and others, men of my own tongue, of my own flesh and blood, who were wedded in spirit and blood to the same heritage that I was wedded to. The day I was married and the individual births of my six children have been the only moments in my life that can compare with the day I set foot on British soil.

Posted by Fr. John on June 05, 2009, 11:00 AM | #

Raimondo is a fag (literally).

When I first read that, I knew that, sooner or later, his hatred for the future would eventually outweigh his ‘conservative’ veneer, however thin.

Pardon my bluntness, but sodomites are ‘ideological niggers’- present-oriented, desirous of sexual gratification on a moment’s notice, and never far from their groin, whenever it concerns their pleasure, in matters intellectual.

Raimondo is anti-war, because he is not a man. His desire is for a nanny state, no matter how ‘libertarian’ he may be, because self-sacrifice, coupled with self-denial, escapes him as an indeolgical construct worth emulating.

“Deny thyself, and follow me.” - Christ, to the Apostles

Europe and America were great because of two things- We were White (racial) and we were Christendom (cultural/religious). Dissect or remove one or the other, and we are ripe to fall.

There is no other option. And neither Taylor (with his Hebischkeitsreichkanzellor’s over at AmRen, stifling ANY comment that might implicate the jews) nor Raimondo (who loathes Christian denunciations of his ‘chosen lifestyle’) offer a valid future paradigm, to recapture White, Christian civilization.

Posted by Svigor on June 06, 2009, 12:44 AM | #

Homosexuals needn’t fear this white man.

Do I think the criticisms in our camp of homosexuals are true?  Yes.  Do I think that’s any reason to categorically criticise or reject white homosexuals?  No.  If there’s room for this cultural Christian who accepts faithful Christians but will never himself be a faithful Christian, then there’s room for white poofters.

Posted by q on June 06, 2009, 01:13 AM | #

Homosexuals needn’t fear this white man.

Nor I. But I wish they would keep it in the closet ... at least for the childrens’ sake!