Sep 12, 2009

By | 6 Comments | Print Print

Hunter Wallace Settles Accounts with Libertarianism

“Raimondo, Libertarians, and Paleos”
from Occidental Dissent, May 28, 2009

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 familiar? 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, destabilizing, 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 quixotic 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 laissez-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 usurer, 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 analogous 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, impostors, and opportunists that they are.

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

Share

Related Posts

  1. avatar
    Andrew Hamilton said:

    Nobel Prize-winning economist and political philosopher Friedrich Hayek was white, not Jewish.

    Indeed, one Jew received space in a supposedly reputable academic journal to attack him (along with white economists John Maynard Keynes [a homosexual] and Joseph Schumpeter) as anti-Semitic: Melvin W. Reder, “The Anti-Semitism of Some Eminent Economists,” History of Political Economy 32 (Winter 2000): 833-56. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/history_of_political_economy/v032/32.4reder.html

    Any intelligent person will profit greatly from a careful study of Hayek’s invaluable work.

  2. That Rothbard was accepted as a conservative says much about American conservatism. Truth is, this was never a very conservative country. It was from the beginning the creation of Enlightenment liberalism, and fatally, never had Europe’s traditional understanding that Rothbards were different and dangerous.

  3. This is an important article, perhaps one of the most important thus far posted on this site. Libertarianism must be smashed, as I know this has long been a goal of the editor of TOQ.

    This essay is a nice start to the growing battle on the “alternate right”… WNs must brush aside Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Tea Potters, etc… they are nothing to us and are but a sad distraction.

    What were the goals of the 9/12 march on DC today? Almost a million white people went to DC to talk about freedom, liberty, etc…

    But it did will accomplish absolutely nothing.

  4. Wonderful essay. The Paleocon/Paleo-libertarian project has failed. These thinkers have proved themselves unable to deal with the existential threat facing the West. Takimag, Raimondo, and friends are irrelevant. The White Nationalist moment is now.

  5. Great article for those with ears to hear…

    Otherwise we have to say bluntly every time: I am white before being a democrat or republican or communist or libertarian or anything else. We need to say this loudly, before such assertion could become deadly.

    A Romanian communist leader Lucretiu Patrascanu said with a certain occasion that “I am a Romanian before being a communist”. After that he was at first marginalized, imprisoned and finally executed (the head smashed with an axe by somebody called Boris Grunberg) in 1954. Not that I would give a damn for somebody stupid enough to be a communist.

    But this is how the things are evolving right now everywhere. If anybody in US will say I am white before being a libertarian, what will happen then? For now he will be marginalized, fired, he will loose probably his family, his friends. As long as he is alive it is still OK. What will happen tomorrow? This is the first question.

    As anybody knows a theory is just a theory aka just a mental representation of reality. It is not the truth. It can be useful in certain situation but still it is not the absolute truth. It is an approximation. So why the people would spend such great deal of energy for something called “libertarianism”? Why? As long as it says that I am not what I am but something different it is a wrong theory. I am the son of father and my father is the son of his father and so on. Who the hell is Ayn Rand to tell me that I should not love and respect my father and my grandfather and their grandfathers.? Who the hell is Ayn Rand to tell me that I shouldn’t? This was the second question.

  6. While Libertarians often say very wise things, what they do not realize is that their wisdom has nothing to essentially do with liberty per se. In my mind, libertarianism is simply a chic cult movement inspired by a messianic vision of mankind that can never be realized. They are sort of reverse style Marxists. While Marxists seek to create community on the basis of the denial and eventual suppression of individuals’ accidental attributes, emphasizing the generic human substance over the individual substrate, the libertarians seek to assign relevance solely to the individual substrate and to deny that generic human substantiality is a very real phenomenon existing within individuals in a very real sense.

    Take race as an example. Marxists deny the concept of race unless it is applied to the entirety of the human species. For them differentiation downward from the absolute substance of man is impermissible; on ideological grounds. Likewise, libertarians deny the concept of race but based on the epistemological platform that race is but an artificial construct arrived at out of empty abstraction. Thus, they see generalizations upwards as exercises in unreality or as mere useful tools that do not possess any relevance intrinsically.

    Psychologically, my take on Marxists is that they are such fragmented individuals so desirous of community that they are incapable of realizing the natural boundaries of humanity that nature has already provided for us. On the other hand, libertarians are such fragmented individuals that they dread any natural human community for fear that such a community would consider them outcasts and undesirables. In order to safeguard their fragmented selves, libertarians seek the elimination of all natural communities. In their own paranoid ways, they are faithful Frankfurters.

    Politically however, libertarianism is purely infantile in character and basically amounts to a desire for the anarchy of the jungle. Of course, this would be denied but logically the course of libertarianism is indeed the jungle. Consider the supposed incontrovertible metaphysic of libertarianism. This metaphysic states that the only legitimate function of the state is to safeguard individual contracts. Splendid on the face of it. But what these gentlemen are asking for is basically the forced socialization of protection. Naturally, libertarians would oppose the use of the word “forced”. But their idea of “legitimate government” necessarily implies some sort of the very force that they childishly imagine their utopia would not possess. Why would their minimalist state force individuals to support the protection of others that were of no concern to the individuals in question? Also, why is there even a requirement for a state, no matter how minimalist? Why not have a situation where individuals “take care of business” by themselves?
    Why, for example, would “Mr.Galt” need a police force? Why would “Mr.Galt” need to beckon the assistance or the welfare of others to help him in the event that he may feel cheated or threatened? I assume “Mr.Galt” is a big boy and big boys with big mouths ought to know how to handle adversity. But they in fact don’t know how to handle adversity. So what do they do? They construct a hypothetical state to their liking but only to their liking and they dub this state the only state morally permissible – to the neglect of course of the standards of morality known to whole and complete and community-minded western man for millennia.

Leave a Comment

Comment Policy: Abusive, irrelevant, spammy, or trollish comments are prohibited. Repeat violations of this policy will result in a permanent ban.

Back to Top