BANNED ON "FREE" REPUBLIC

by Alex Linder

I am the very border of Respectability/ Yes, all the evil Nazis start just one step right from me...

This Gilbert & Sullivan-style refrain might serve as the motto of the Beanbag Right, because it is the tacit position of: the libertarian (Justin Raimondo), the Republican (Georges Bush), the neoconservative (Horowitz and the Jews), the paleoconservative (Thomas Fleming and the Chronicles crowd), the Semitically Correct racialist (Jared Taylor and the American Renaissance crowd).

The Official & Respectable right can't handle, won't face the truth about race and Jews. We already know that, but the back and forth below is a priceless demonstration of it. Redoubtable racialist writer Irmin outargues poofter-libertarian and poseur-rebel Justin Raimondo, who is reduced to whimpering for Big Jim Robinson, proprietor of "Free" Republic, to censor the thread. Which he did -- yanking the post and thread; kicking Irmin off for speaking the truth that neither he nor Justin can handle. Pitiful, but proof for any of you out there reading this who still don't comprehend that to expect a return to a civilized country through the agency of anybody making money as a "right-wing" writer or politician is to expect what will never happen. They're bought, boys -- their balls are in a box. They've sold their intellectual integrity for a mess of pottage. They are worse than Jews, for they are both cowardly and traitorous. They are indeed the Beanbag Right, as Jack Halliday calls it, after Finley Peter Dunne -- an entirely fake opposition.

The conversation starts with Raimondo defending his attack on James Lubinskas, a writer for the Semitically Correct racialist Jared Taylor. Lubinskas wrote a recent article for neocon David Horowitz' Frontpagemag about the decline of Buchananism. Although the article was essentially descriptive and analytical, Raimondo perceived it as an attack and responded in kind... (My comments below are in blue.)

To: A. F. Decentralist

Thanks for posting this, AFDecentralist. To those who are accusing me of "smearing" Lubinskas, I ask: why is it a "smear" to expose the essential dishonesty of his piece? He attacks not only Buchanan, but Chronicles magazine, for not being racist enough for his tastes, but only obliquely, and without referring to his organizational affiliations. This is a typical neocon characteristic: complete dishonesty, and I must admit I took great pleasure in exposing this shill for what he is.

Secondly, it was and is necessary to draw a shining line in the sand, so to speak, and tell it like it is: we don't need racists in our ranks who claim that blacks have "smaller brains" than whites (a theory touted by Rushton and echoed by the Taylorites), we don't need the Klan-in-a-coat-&-tie: these guys are just Jesse Jackson turned inside out (or upside down, as the case may be). Racial collectivism is just as bad as any other form of collectivism: it is, as Ayn Rand put it, "the lowest form of collectivism" -- and David Horowitz's alliance with these creeps exposes him as a vicious opportunist with no sense of values.

And what is it with "white separatism"? What kind of a euphemism is THAT? What these guys are talking about is starting a RACIAL CIVIL WAR! What a sickening concept.

As to when or if Tom Fleming is going to comment on this subject, I haven't heard.

35 Posted on 12/04/2000 10:14:04 PST by Justin Raimondo

====

To: Zviadist

I should add: I have heard rumors that Lubinskas is up for a job at the Washington Times. A pay-off for his yeoman's work for the neocons? This is speculation, of course, but I note that American Renaissance has posted a "Help Wanted" ad on the front page of their website, looking for a new assistant editor. The neocon-white racialist alliance marches on. . . .

37 Posted on 12/04/2000 10:33:48 PST by Justin Raimondo

====

To: Justin Raimondo

Racial collectivism is just as bad as any other form of collectivism: ...

What is so bad about national families? Civic politeness and respect comes much easier to groups that have shared history and ancestory. It is a demonized opinion in the West but most of the world ascribes to it in fact.

Multiculturalism in America and Britain is another form of the Stalinism where national groups are moved around for short term political reasons.

Multiculturalism may be good for interesting restaurant choices and for classical liberals trying to get rich, or looking for cheap help to clean the house, but so far as the general civic peace goes there is no indication that mixing everyone up in a sort of Blade Runner meets Tower of Babel is anything other than another social engineered disaster.

Of course it is too late now to turn back the clock on immigration but the outlook for the future civil peace and brotherly love in America of the 21 Century is not good. Can't we all just get along? Probably not.

38 Posted on 12/04/2000 10:50:15 PST by Uprise

====

To: Uprise

Judging someone on the basis of race is just laziness. "National families"? A family is, by definition, a SMALL and entirely personal phenomenon, and cannot be political. What you are talking about is TRIBAL consciousness, but tribalism is not something I would wish on America. Look at Africa: enuff said!

Don't misunderstand me: I oppose increased immigration, agree that multi-culti is mucho trouble, and absolutely hate political correctness -- but attacking Buchanan because he chose a black woman for his VP slot? That is well beyond the pale.

39 Posted on 12/04/2000 10:57:46 PST by Justin Raimondo

====

To: Gecko

The neocons and their friends -- including Lubsinkas/Taylor -- can dish it out, but they sure as hell can't take it. Why is it unfair for me to simply point out the truth about the political views of a writer who denigrates Chronicles magazine, in my view the BEST conservative magazine around? Why is it unfair for me to point out the reason for this unholy alliance? Yes, I know, the ADL-SPLC-etc. etc. have smeared numerous persons who are NOT neo-Nazis, or anti-Semites. Yet this does not mean that there is no such thing as a neo-Nazi or that anti-Semitism does not exist. And it is especially pertinent when the very SAME people who smeared Pat -- Horowitz & Co., and attacked Chronicles magazine -- are now ALLYING with the REAL racists!

Next time Horowitz and his friends declare "The End of Paleoconservatism," they are going to have to be a lot more careful how they go about it. Please -- spare me the whining and the gnashing of teeth. I am fighting fire with fire -- and I intend to win.

83 Posted on 12/05/2000 21:19:28 PST by Justin Raimondo

====

To: Justin Raimondo

White nationalists should thank Justin Raimondo. He has helpfully demonstrated some important political truths: (a) any serious opposition to globalization, massive Third World immigration, affirmative action, the destruction of nation-states, etc. -- in short, the entire anti-national "diversity" agenda -- must be explicitly racial; (b) any serious opposition to the diversity agenda will inevitably be labeled "neo-nazi." Nationalists, no matter how hard some of us try, can't evade the label; some Raimondo or Podhoretz will eventually get around to affixing it, if the ADL doesn't affix it first.

Even if you disavow "racism" or "white supremacism" while (for example) wondering aloud, within ear-shot of a Raimondo, whether there might be socially significant genetic differences among the various races, or whether importing millions of Mexicans across a now virtually non-existent border is consistent with the preservation of the American nation, he'll still denounce you as a "neo-nazi," just as surely as if you had proposed gassing Jews, lynching Blacks, or invading Poland.

Anyone who doesn't believe that Euro-Americans are under some strange moral imperative to dissolve themselves is now a "neo-nazi," so for anyone who doesn't accept the imperative, it's better to be openly racialist and laugh at the slurs, or treat them as unintended compliments.

Jared Taylor is, needless to say, not a "nazi" of any variety, "neo-" or otherwise. Like Buchanan, he has done everything he can to avoid the label, as Raimondo himself tacitly acknowledges, but to no avail, since "neo-nazi" isn't a description of a set of political beliefs; it's merely an all-purpose rhetorical bomb dropped on anyone with whom Raimondos and Podhoretzes _really_ disagree. It saves them the trouble of specifying why.

Thankfully this particular bomb, unlike the humanitarian bombs that anti-racialist globalists now drop on European cities, is only verbal, so sensible white nationalists should have a simple response: "Fine, Justin, I'm a neo-nazi and a racist. Now tell me what that actually means?" He won't because he can't.

As an aside, hopefully everybody got a good laugh from the following: "Racialism is more a psychological illness or, at least, a personal failing, rather than a political ideology: like cancer, one is always better off without it." (JR)

You know that an anti-racialist is intellectually impoverished, to the point of comical desperation, when he stoops to medicalizing political disagreements. It is, unfortunately, a common trick: Declare the "racist" or "neo-nazi" mentally ill in order to dismiss his beliefs as symptoms of an underlying psychosis.

The sinister, card-carrying neo-nazi John Rocker, some will recall, just barely escaped mandatory therapy for his own "psychological illness."

--Irmin

91 Posted on 12/05/2000 23:57:19 PST by Irmin

====

To: A. F. Decentralist

I never attacked Howard Phillips as any kind of racialist.

Look, the whole point of my article was that the neoconservatives and the racialist-Right ganging up on PJB and Chronicles magazine has got to be THE definition of "strange bedfellows." As for the meaning of the "neo-Nazi" label, I think it is clear what I mean: someone who believes in the genetic basis of white "superiority" over all the other races and has devised a political program which would use the State to protect the "purity" of the white "race." This is clearly the view held by Jared Taylor.

Irmin is typical of the "white nationalist" sectarianism that makes any alliance with them not only unwise (on ideological grounds), but impossible on strategic and tactical grounds. In his (her?) view, "any serious opposition to globalization, massive Third World immigration, affirmative action, the destruction of nation-states, etc. -- in short, the entire anti-national "diversity" agenda -- must be explicitly racial." And why is that? Because they're going to call us "Nazis" anyway, so why not come out of the closet and declare it? But to any rational person, it is clear that opposition to globalism and state-enforced "diversity" can indeed be mounted on grounds that have nothing to do with race "purity," and everything to do with a concept that most Americans embrace: the idea of JUSTICE. This is the only way we are gong to win: the racialist non-strategy means that we must initially LIMIT our appeal only to "whites" (am I white? I wonder....) and only those whites who have "white racial consciousness." This is a losing strategy if ever there was one.

Again, wondering whether "importing millions of Mexicans across a now virtually non-existent border is consistent with the preservation of the American nation" has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the definition of a nation: without borders, nations will simply dissolve. Is that what most Americans want? I don't think so -- but approaching the issue from a "racial" perspective is bound to convince most Americans that maybe nations aren't such a good idea after all.

Irmin writes that:

"Anyone who doesn't believe that Euro-Americans are under some strange moral imperative to dissolve themselves is now a "neo-nazi," so for anyone who doesn't accept the imperative, it's better to be openly racialist and laugh at the slurs, or treat them as unintended compliments."

Opposition to self-dissolution is one thing -- a proclamation of one's own genetic superiority is quite another. That racialists see no difference is yet more evidence of the unhealthy mental habits that, in the end, produce a kind of madness.

I have no objection to racialists openly proclaiming their racialism: what I object to is the hypocrisy of David Horowitz and other ideologues of "compassionate" conservatism who bloc with racialists to attack Buchanan and Chronicles, all the while maintaining that their paleoconservative enemies are "racists," anti-Semites, etc. etc.

And one more thing: In his speech to the American Renaissance conference cited in my column, Taylor wondered aloud why it is that whites are "losing" and the multicultural darkness is descending, openly speculating that maybe it's "the Jews" after all. So we combine white racialism based on the idea of genetic "superiority" with some pretty explicit anti-Semitism and what do we have? If this isn't neo-Nazism, then what IS?

94 Posted on 12/06/2000 10:04:39 PST by Justin Raimondo

====

To: Justin Raimondo

JR:
**As for the meaning of the "neo-Nazi" label, I think it is clear what I mean: someone who believes in the genetic basis of white "superiority" over all the other races and has devised a political program which would use the State to protect the "purity" of the white "race." This is clearly the view held by Jared Taylor.**

In fact, it clearly isn't the view held by Jared Taylor. AmRen routinely publishes psychometric evidence indicating that East Asians are, on average, more intelligent than whites. Publicizing such evidence is so obviously inconsistent with Taylor's purported belief in "white 'superiority' over all the other races" that we have to conclude either that Taylor is too dumb to notice the inconsistency -- i.e., very, very dumb -- or that he doesn't believe in white genetic superiority. The latter seems more likely.

The unfortunate truth is that Euro-Americans are now so thoroughly laden with racial guilt and frightened by "racism" that the IQ evidence for East Asian intellectual "superiority" probably helps rather than hinders white nationalism. We're more likely to accept evidence that puts us in second place in the genetics sweepstakes; a higher ranking would seem far too Hitlerian for comfort.

Taylor does, I would assume, believe in the superiority of the national cultures and political institutions formed by people of European descent. But that, as far as I'm concerned, is close to a non-debatable statement of fact.

A serious racial question, though, is whether importing millions of non-whites, via immigration policies and rapidly dissolving borders, is likely to strengthen or weaken Western national cultures and Western political institutions. That, too, I would argue, is close to non-debatable; it does weaken them. But you, presumably, disagree -- Zulus are just as assimilable as Englishmen, our diversity is our strength, pigs fly, etc.

JR:
**... it is clear that opposition to globalism and state-enforced "diversity" can indeed be mounted on grounds that have nothing to do with race "purity," and everything to do with a concept that most Americans embrace: the idea of JUSTICE. This is the only way we are gong to win: the racialist non-strategy means that we must initially LIMIT our appeal only to "whites" (am I white? I wonder....) and only those whites who have "white racial consciousness." This is a losing strategy if ever there was one.**

But which Americans actually do support "the idea of Justice"?

Would an anti-AA plebiscite, carefully appealing to "justice" and "equality under the law," succeed in California after whites have dwindled down to, say, thirty percent of the population? The likelihood must be close to zero.

Almost everyone now officially subscribes, rightly or wrongly, to the view that racial discrimination is profoundly unjust and ought therefore to be illegal. No mainstream politician would dare campaign for an employer's legal "right" to discriminate on the basis of race. Arguments against racially discriminatory hiring programs that punish whites for their race, while rewarding blacks and other minorities for theirs, should in theory be entirely unnecessary, if most Americans, of all races, really do embrace the abstract idea of justice, as you believe.

But of course political reality on the ground is quite different. Blacks and "Hispanics" know well that the elimination of racial preferences would benefit Euro-Americans and injure them, and few are willing to sacrifice the employment opportunities or college placements that they have acquired at our expense for the far less tangible pleasure of proclaiming race neutrality and abstract "justice." In fact many enjoy both, demanding racial discrimination against whites while angrily decrying white "racism." We're not supposed to notice the discrepancy between their demands and the rhetoric of "equality" and "justice" that surrounds them.

You (and other non-racialist conservatives) can't easily elude the fact that, in any "outreach" to non-white minorities, the non-negotiable price of their support, whether for the Left or for the Right, must include discrimination directed against whites. No naive appeal to "justice" will convince many to forgo the benefits of AA reverse discrimination programs, and most will vote against anyone who even hints that he might take them away.

Minorities, in other words, act politically in their own perceived racial self-interests, and they are largely unmoved by appeals to race-neutral justice.

The one racial group, unfortunately, that is moved by such appeals happens to be our own; only in that sense can anyone plausibly argue that "most [Euro-] Americans embrace the idea of JUSTICE." And that's the real "losing strategy." Race neutrality in the face of race consciousness will lose almost every time. Minorities understand that, and they know that in a multiracial society demographics is power. Whites haven't yet caught on, although the recent election may have enlightened some.

We're losing without our former racial consciousness; we have some hope of winning if we reacquire it. That's why I advocate unapologetic white nationalism.

JR:
**Again, wondering whether "importing millions of Mexicans across a now virtually non-existent border is consistent with the preservation of the American nation" has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the definition of a nation: without borders, nations will simply dissolve. Is that what most Americans want? I don't think so -- but approaching the issue from a "racial" perspective is bound to convince most Americans that maybe nations aren't such a good idea after all.**

One important purpose of borders is to keep foreigners out, but that entails some self-identification of ourselves as a people, distinct from other people ("foreigners") and with legitimate national interests of our own to defend.

Whites, or at least those who still hope to maintain a cohesive national culture within American borders, have an interest in keeping Mexicans out. The Mexicans already within American borders have an interest in more Mexicans arriving, and Jesse et al also want more racial minorities, of any complexion, to swell the ranks of their anti-white rainbow coalition. I'd call that conflict of incompatible political interests a real _racial_ issue.

Fifty years ago few could have predicted that thousands of non-citizens would eventually be permitted to vote in American elections, and that only a despised band of "racists" and "neo-nazis" would bother complaining. But that's what fifty years of "anti-racism" have brought about: the inability to distinguish citizens from foreigners.

JR:
**I have no objection to racialists openly proclaiming their racialism: what I object to is the hypocrisy of David Horowitz and other ideologues of "compassionate" conservatism who bloc with racialists to attack Buchanan and Chronicles, all the while maintaining that their paleoconservative enemies are "racists," anti-Semites, etc. etc.**

I don't have any great inclination to defend Horowitz, but my guess is that he misunderstood Lubinskas' article. If you take a look at the responses on FrontPage, you'll see that many readers failed to recognize what he was really advocating, largely between the lines. You got it right, at least on the substance. Quite a few didn't, Horowitz likely among them.

JR:
**And one more thing: In his speech to the American Renaissance conference cited in my column, Taylor wondered aloud why it is that whites are "losing" and the multicultural darkness is descending, openly speculating that maybe it's "the Jews" after all. So we combine white racialism based on the idea of genetic "superiority" with some pretty explicit anti-Semitism and what do we have? If this isn't neo-Nazism, then what IS?**

If Jared Taylor really is a "neo-nazi" and an "anti-Semite," I think you'll find it challenging to come up with suitably hostile labels for the rest of the racialist Right.

A few years ago Taylor shut down his mail-list, ARMail, because too many non-AR participants wanted to discuss the role of Jewish organizations in promoting multiculturalism and non-white immigration. He features Jewish speakers in prominent positions at every conference he has organized. Jewish writers are frequent contributors to his magazine. I believe I'm correct in saying that twenty-five percent of AR members are Jewish; at any rate the number is substantial, and I doubt any of them has much affection for Hitler. Whether Taylor is right to do all that is another matter, but if political language were used rationally rather than polemically, it would be sufficient to immunize him against the charge of "anti-Semitism" and "neo-nazism." But it wasn't, because those labels are just rhetorical bombs, and indiscriminate bombing, as every NATO bomber knows, is the most effective.

It's perhaps worth pointing out that Pat Buchanan is, as far as I'm aware, the only reasonably mainstream political commentator who has proposed disaggregating Jews from the demographic category "white":

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a365cc1b30512.htm

--Irmin

97 Posted on 12/07/2000 01:31:09 PST by Irmin

====

To: ComputerAndPoliticalNewbie

**What would you rather have, a socialist Canadian or a pro-life Catholic hispanic ? Would you pick the Canadian socialist just because he is white? As a pro-lifer, social conservative, I choose the hispanic.**

If I had a choice between Bill Clinton and Thomas Sowell as presidential candidates, I'd vote for Sowell without the slightest hesitation.

It is, however, characteristic of Euro-Americans that we mistakenly prefer to discuss the atypical qualities of individual members of groups rather than the cumulative effect of groups on the larger society. That perhaps says something good ("nice") about us as a people. But it's dangerously naive when the subject is racial demographics. Groups have their own patterns of group behavior, and when we're discussing the effect of unprecedented demographic changes brought about by non-white immigration, we have to look at the forest rather than the individual trees.

Has the effect, in general, of non-white immigration been good or bad? Is the United States more or less balkanized now than it was forty years ago, when we were still ninety percent white? Does the presence of Mexicans in America raise or lower crime rates? Do larger numbers of non-whites increase or diminish political demands for racial preference programs? Is bilingualism a good idea?

Those are simple but important questions, and their answers are obvious.

**On the other hand, I completely see your points about race neutrality in the face of race consciousness...as a former public schoolteacher who taught in the inner city, I can tell you all about reverse racism, having been one of the few white teachers in my school. And it was like that across the school district. My home may be multi-cultural, but at work all they saw was the white on my skin, and they hated me for it. To them, I represented the priviledged white man who wished to hold them down. But that is more of a result of the way they have been politicalized by democrat party hate rhetoric than a racial thing.**

You attribute minority hatred for whites to leftist "hate rhetoric." I consider it a normal feature of any multiracial society.

We can easily test your theory vs. mine. Can you think of many multiracial nations that are _not_ characterized by perpetual interracial hatreds? I can't think of a single example, but the number of successful multiracial nations must be extremely small. India, where sectarian violence occurs on an almost daily basis, is a good case for my side of the argument; there are many more.

If you put more than one race within the same nation, pretty soon you'll have more than one nation. And different nations within the same country seldom display much mutual affection.

There's nothing magical about American soil that somehow protects us from the normal dynamics of interracial relations. Multiculturalism and multiracialism are just different names for balkanization, and balkanized multiracial states (non-nations, in the strict sense of the term "nation") are normally marked by continual racial/ethnic tension that often degenerates into open violence. The United States is no exception to the rule, as the L.A. Riot (or "Uprising," as many non-whites prefer) should have demonstrated.

We too often try to avoid unpleasant racial issues by attributing minority hatred to external sources: If all those crazy white liberals would stop stirring up the coloreds with their crazy liberal schemes and their incessant campaigns against white "racism," then we could all just get along in a raceless meritocracy. But what if the minorities really want the crazy liberal schemes and the incessant anti-white campaigns?

Anti-white hate rhetoric varies in inverse proportion to the real presence of what it is ostensibly intended to combat. The more raceless we become, the more insistent the demands from minorities, along with their leftist allies, that we rid ourselves of our "racism," which at this point is (tragically) almost non-existent.

The solution is clear -- just say "no" to diversity.

**With Hispanics, it works like this...pro-life hispanics come to this country and see that in order to survive on the bottom of the economic scale, they need the handouts that government might give them...they learn that voting and thinking along democrat party lines helps them achieve those goals. Next thing you know, they are making alliances with feminists and homosexuals even though when they came to this country they may have been highly religious and pro-life.**

You're confirming my argument.

Mexicans in America may be, as open-borders advocates often claim, socially conservative in their private lives and in their religious convictions. But they nevertheless vote, for the most part, on the basis of their "Hispanic" ethnicity, supporting political candidates whose positions on social issues clearly violate their professed moral principles. Import more pro-life "Hispanics," and you get more pro-choice Democrats. Race trumps God, which is a pretty good indication of the power of racial identification.

**I say all this to let you know that I think that unless a race stands for something bigger than itself, what is the use of undying loyalty to it?**

I have no problem with that; a nation is much more than a race. I just don't think the "something bigger than itself" should include national suicide. Once upon a time loyalty to your nation was called "patriotism"; now it's become "racism."

====

Some quotes to ponder:

Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets -- "Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die ... Through love of having children, we are going to take over."

Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council -- "They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They're right. We will take them over ... We are here to stay."

Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas. -- "We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population ... I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it."

Mexico City's Excelsior columnist Carlos Loret De Mola, writing in an article entitled "The Great Invasion: Mexico Recovers Its Own" -- "A peaceful mass of people ... carries out slowly and patiently an unstoppable invasion, the most important in human history. You cannot give me a similar example of such a large migratory wave by an ant-like multitude, stubborn, unarmed, and carried on in the face of the most powerful and best armed nation on earth ... barbed-wire fences, nor aggressive border guards, nor campaigns, nor laws, nor police raids against the undocumented, have stopped this movement of the masses that is unprecedented in any part of the world."

Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party -- "Remember, [Proposition] 187 was the last gasp of white America in California."

Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor -- "We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country. I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, 'I'm going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back.'"

Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton -- "California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave."

Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General -- "We are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California."

Try to imagine any white leader using similar language. And try to imagine, also, any large, "diverse" American city ten minutes after the lights go out.

--Irmin

109 Posted on 12/09/2000 13:36:17 PST by Irmin

====

To: Irmin

The racist claptrap above is a perfect example of the racialist "mind" -- and I use the term loosely -- in operation. If this kind of reasoning is an example of white supremacy in action, then one can well understand the despair of the white racialists....

NOTE TO FREEPERS AND LURKERS: The American Renaissance website has given the url for this thread as a kind of "answer" to my original article. As if the unpunctuated drivel above was any kind of answer to anything! Thus, the comments by goosestepping wackos are NOT indicative of Free Republic: indeed, Jim Robinson (the owner) discourages racist screeds and has been known to eliminate threads containing such material when they are brought to his attention. And rightly so, I might add.

110 Posted on 12/09/2000 15:12:16 PST by Justin Raimondo

That, my friends, is what you call hoisting the white flag. Raimondo has given up. Like the good little Semitically Correct libertarian he is, he spews epithets and whines for censorship when the argument runs against him. Do I really need to emphasize the humor in a "libertarian" -- i.e., one who ostensibly believes in "liberty" -- calling for censorship? Ah well, libertarianism is an ideology that hates racial truths as much as it hates history and the facts about human nature. Humans and human history simply cannot be understood one individual at a time. People are every bit as much members of groups and classes and races as they are unique individuals. Collectivism (communism) and individualism (libertarianism) are both dangerous ideologies; dangerous because they ignore half of reality by pretending it doesn't exist.

====

To: ComputerAndPoliticalNewbie

**I agree with you that unlimited illegal immigration is a problem, and due to changing demographics, Republicas can only hope to win one or MAYBE two more elections if this trend continues. I have recently posted articles by Sam Francis on this very issue. My view is more in-line with Buchanan's view...do not do away with immigration, but cut it WAY back, and give the melting pot time to work again. My unique twist is that I think that if Democrats want quotas in the workplace, then they should be consistent and apply quotas to immigration as well. Northern european immigration numbers should reflect (percentage-wise) the current Anglo population percentages.**

You are essentially describing immigration law prior to its "reform" in 1965. The old national-origins quota system is now regularly denounced as hopelessly "racist," and it would require a conceptual sea change, of the sort racial nationalists advocate, in Euro-American thinking on race to resurrect it. In fact, you're more "racist" than I am. I have no preference for Northern over Southern European immigration, even though the latter deposited the Raimondo family on our shores.

You're also naively assuming that the proponents of multiracialism act upon consistent principles. If they support racial quotas in hiring, you believe, they couldn't in good conscience oppose racial quotas in immigration. But that gives them much more credit than they deserve. They actually want racial balkanization (aka "multiculturalism"); opening American borders to the Third World is a sure-fire way to get it. And they need more minorities to make racial preferences, along with the rest of the "diversity" agenda, politically irreversible. Non-white immigration is a means to an end, and logical consistency and race-neutral fairness are obstacles they'll cheerfully ignore.

Imagine yourself asking Art ("Last Gasp of White America") Torres to reduce, for the sake of greater "fairness," his group's accelerating increase in population so that you can maintain your group's current majority status. His answer should be easily predictable. He knows that the political power of his ethnic constituency is determined by its size, and he's not about to reduce voluntarily the ability of "Hispanics" to dominate institutions and extort preferences from raceless whites. Remember, in a multiracial anti-nation demographics is power.

Racial minorities, along with their vocal amen corner, would quickly see through your call for "fairness" and "consistency." You don't really believe that our diversity is our strength; you think we have too many racial minorities and you want to reduce their rate of increase; you think Euro-Americans should remain a majority in the nation their forefathers built. In other words, your proposal for "consistency" and "fairness" is racially motivated, in contravention of the First Law of Race Relations in multicultural America: All sentiments of group loyalty are very good when expressed by minorities, but very wicked ("racist") when expressed by whites.

It's better to be open. When you're making a racialist proposal, label it as such. If minorities act politically in the racial interests of their group, we should as well, without apology and without equivocation.

**And once again, let me restate that a race must stand for something bigger than itself. My vision would be that we stand not for whiteness in and of itself, but for individual rights contained within our Bill of Rights, applied equally to ALL AMERICANS, that is such an important ingredient of our Constituition.**

The authors of which were, almost to a man, racialists who feared the socially fragmenting effects of large-scale immigration. A Raimondo could easily label them "paleo-nazis."

**This vision is exportable to the cultures of the minority groups, and is inclusive.**

You export it first, and then we can discuss immigration afterward. It has not yet been exported, and I see no evidence that it will be exported any time soon. And the clock is ticking, as you have already acknowledged.

--Irmin

113 Posted on 12/10/2000 14:04:13 PST by Irmin

There's a common thread running through the Beanbag Right: fear. Fear of minorities, fear of Jews, fear of racists. Thus the irresistible urge to censor and smear and denounce anybody who stands athwart the Jewish lie that race doesn't matter, and that diversity is our greatest strength. And the fear is quite well justified because we racialists have the truth on our side, and as the Respectable Right dissolves in a puddle of Semitically Correct me-too liberalism, more and more Whites awaken to our truth, and more and more Whites speak it publicly. They are the intellectually soft and the morally corrupt, while we, the genuine revolutionaries, play it straight. It doesn't matter how many Bought Bob Doles inform us "the exits are clearly marked"; it doesn't matter how many Cowardly Lion Jim Robinsons censor our words and encourage their readers to hate us: Our ideas are right, they are based on truth, and they will prevail. The Beanbaggers have given up; we have just begun to fight. And my opinion is that we will win. Nor Hymie, nor Jesse, nor Bob Dole shall prevail against us.

Back to VNN Main Page

Click Here!