Raimondo, Libertarians, and Paleos

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.

Update: Some negative reaction to Raimondo’s article here and here.

About Hunter Wallace 11876 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

6 Comments

  1. ‘“Libertarianism” isn’t some neatly packaged ideology with instruction manual and rulebook that we can just look up “what does libertarianism say about this“?’

    Sure it is. Libertarianism has a position on all sorts of issues which logically follows from its core values.

    “The ideology is an outgrowth of holding personal autonomy as the highest value.”

    There. You just admitted it. Personal autonomy is the highest value, according to libertarianism. The restrictions on personal autonomy that are necessary for racial survival are contrary libertarian ideology.

    “Swapping personal autonomy for race doesn’t require you to junk everything else that has flowed”

    It means a contradiction agaomst core libertarian values.

    “If you make racialism about political philosophy you can’t avoid these tiresome, time-wasting debates. How on earth can you think winning a debate with libertarians is a better use of your time than making the broadest possible case for race?”

    I never debate this subject with libertarians in general. I am discussing this YOU, for you are absurdly claiming that libertarianism is compatible with pro-white nationalism/racialism.

    “Holding race and personal autonomy as the equal highest values makes racialism accord with libertarianism.”

    One must be higher than the other. It is logically impossible for personal autonomy and race to be “equally” high values. When, in a given situation, one of those two values tells you to do X, and the other value tells you to do Y, you need some sort of standard by which to choose the former over the latter, or vice versa. And that standard would logiclaly have to be a higher value than considerations of personal autonomy or race.

  2. “That’s Bob’s Mantra. His main point is to stay focused on the genocide. I agree with it. I wouldn’t presume to speak for him but his response to Raimondo would probably be to point out that Raimondo’s screed amounts to a defense of White genocide. Which it is.” (Tanstaafl)

    Agreed. Every situation is a bit different, every “teachable moment” varies a bit from the next – but it should never be forgotten that our opponents are, in fact, pro genocide. Their policies quite literally lead to the rape and murder of innocent people, followed by marginalization and then extinction. Once they are made aware of the facts (for example, tens of thousands of white women raped yearly by nonwhites since integration), and yet they still insist on opening the floodgates to nonwhites, they have become advocates of rape. They have become advocates of murder. They have become advocates of genocide. If they advocate the policy, knowing full well the results of that policy, then they own it – morally.

    We can pound away with this, and knock the anti-white off his imagined moral high ground. He most assuredly doesn’t deserve any sort of high ground, he has only earned being looked down upon.

    Raimondo is a loon, but he is not stupid. He knows full well the demonstrable and documented results of the anti-white policies that he supports. Yet he supports them still. He should be hectored and shunned for the rape, murder, and genocide that he advocates.

  3. Your article is basically right. I nevertheless want to defend Raimondo on some issues, nr 1 being his very effective role in exposing the neocon jew. I can hardly think of somebody else who has been more influential.

  4. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not to be confused with a personal philosophy on how to live your life. Many libertarians are racialists who support an immigration policy with quotas favoring Europe. Immigration is an issue that many libertarians disagree on, it’s not a monolithic political philosophy, and no political philosophy is. The main thing that libertarians agree on is that our rights come to us as individuals, and that everyone should have the same rights. Your rights shouldn’t be based on what group you belong to. So no special rights for blacks, for gays, for women, etc. Libertarians are against anti discrimination laws because if violates freedom of association, so are racialists, libertarians are against the welfare state, so are racialists. How about returning our schools to local control by ending the department of education so we can regain control of the curriculum that brainwashes our children into believing egalitarian cultural Marxism. Or even the outright privatization of education, which would accomplish many things. It would make education cheaper, there would be more options, so you could send your kids to schools that more reflected your values, it would stop the subsidization of the education of blacks, and send a message to blacks that if you have a kid, be prepared to a pay for it’s schooling yourself; so just like ending the welfare state it would discourage blacks from having kids that white people would have to support. After all, free education in government schools is one of the ten planks of the communist manifesto. Everything that libertarians believe works toward removing the “political” aspects that work against the racialist movement. The rest has to be done through the court of public opinion, not through politics. This means racialists need to get their opinions out there, and convince the apathetic whites that they are correct by pointing out the horrors of diversity. Human beings already voluntarily segregate themselves, so there is no need for segregation laws. Look at every city in America, every race has their own neighborhood. In order to remove the political aspects that work against the racialist movement, you have to build coalitions with people that you may not like in your personal life. The only work that needs to be done in the libertarian movement is convincing more people on the immigration issue. I know it’s very important in order to get the country back to an 80% to 90% white population, but everything else moves us in the direction that would help accomplish racialist goals. So far I don’t see any political ideas on this site that have any realistic possibility of being implemented. Libertarian thought may still be in the minority, but at least it’s a political philosophy that will allow others who’s behavior you and I may not agree with to do what they want, which may bring them over to a political philosophy that serves our long term goals. Tolerance isn’t synonymous with acceptance. Can we at least move the political needle. One other note. Individualism in the political sense is fine. It means that you have the right as an individual to form groups and associations that you approve of. It doesn’t mean that you are an autonomous individual in your personal life. Stop making libertarianism out to be a philosophy on life.

Comments are closed.