1,820 words
“The way some conservatives talk about the border children is racist and revolting.” Is it a headline from Salon.com? Or from the parody twitter account banned for too closely resembling the original?
Nope. It’s everyone’s favorite left-libertarian race cuck, Jack Hunter, the Antifa Avenger, serving up a microwaved bowl of moralpreening vomit seasoned with lies and clichés that could have been copy and pasted from the comments section at The Huffington Post.
Jack Hunter used to be a moderately interesting paleoconservative commentator calling himself “the Southern Avenger” who attached himself to the Ron Paul movement. He later became Rand Paul’s ambassador to the libertarian grassroots, helping Senator Paul “play the game” of working within the system. Of course, a, uh, “neoconservative” group effort highlighted his prior work and had him purged from Paul’s staff. Since his fall, Hunter has built his new career, such as it is, attacking former friends and colleagues as “racist” and flamboyantly repenting for his former beliefs. He now amuses himself as a contributing editor at the minicon site Rare.us, a kind of a low rent Buzzfeed for “center-right” herbs.
The latest thing Hunter slapped together is his giggly clickbait against “racist” conservatives annoyed with our government abolishing our southern border. As John Derbyshire has pointed out, these things follow a script, which specialize in the exaggerated protestations of disgust. Hunter neglects “screed,” “bile,” and “noxious,” but he gets partial credit for fitting in “ugly” twice and saying “embarrassed is an understatement.” He gets another bonus for fitting “revolting” in the title. Also following the template is Hunter’s lack of any facts – just whiny attempts at moral shaming.
Ol’ Jack begins with a kind of greatest hits of his recent past, talking about times he’s been “embarrassed” to be a conservative, mentioning in particular “birthers” and Rick Santorum. Edgy – if you’re at an RNC meeting in 2008. But this is the kind of empty triangulation against straw men that passes for subversive commentary in the wannabe Beltway Right.
Much of Hunter’s commentary in the past was built upon convincing social conservatives not to try to put their religious beliefs into public policy, claiming this somehow hurts their own cause. However, like Nancy Pelosi, Hunter feels he can invoke Christianity if it means convincing whites to work against their own interests. In response to the influx, Hunter disapprovingly quotes a Texas resident who said, “These people are not coming in with a good, Christian heart. Most of them are criminals, anyway.” Hunter responded in his column that “Is there a less compassionate and more implicitly racist statement . . . it’s also one of the least Christian things you could say.”
As backup, Hunter linked to an article by Elizabeth Stoker Bruening, a writer for, you guessed it, Salon.com. Her job is to write a series of variations on the theme that conservatives and libertarians aren’t Christian. Typical offerings are “the Christian case for raising the minimum wage” and “a theological case for the welfare state.” These are the kinds of sources that do not embarrass the supposedly libertarian Hunter.
The good citizen of Texas actually understated the case. The illegals are not “mostly” criminals – they are all criminals, by definition. It is simply fact that coyotes are now profiting massively through the government smuggling that Barack Obama has enabled. Criminal gangs like MS-13 are using Border Patrol stations as recruitment hubs. And while everyone tells us to worry that the poor children are going to face “gang violence” back in Central America, the real agenda seems to be to impose equality by ensuring that white Americans will soon experience these gangs here.
Hunter accuses conservatives of considering illegals “disease-ridden animals” and as proof, links to an article by professional black Jamelle Bouie. As even National Review’s excruciatingly PC Kevin Williamson admits, Bouie’s entire professional output can be summarized as “Jamelle Bouie calls somebody a racist!” The fact is that illegals are bringing in diseases, including those which are leading to lifelong consequences for Border Patrol agents who signed up to defend the country, but instead are serving as nursemaids. The Obama Administration is actually trying to cover up the public health crisis they are creating. But again, the fact that financial costs will be imposed on the American people, and preventing the spread of diseases is less important than policing speech and protecting the self-esteem of people who shouldn’t even be here.
Hunter’s tear-jerking conclusion is that “These kids present a dilemma. They are also kids.”
Except of course, they are not. Most are teenagers, and some are far older. Our country has the edifying spectacle of gray haired illegals clamoring they are actually teenagers — presumably so they can introduce high school girls to some vibrant diversity. And remember — if you have a problem with your daughter dealing with this, you are a racist.
But all is actually less important than the core dishonesty at the heart of Hunter’s belief system. Libertarians urge us to be skeptical when politicians try to display their moral superiority through public policy and other people’s tax dollars. They also tell us to look beyond simplistic rhetoric and see the actual consequences behind policies that simply sound good. Thus, libertarians are always there to tell us why the minimum wage is actually bad for poor people or that upper class tax cuts actually benefit everyone.
However, once the likes of Pelosi or Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick start tearing up about “the children,” skepticism about politicians and basing policy on sentimentality are swiftly abandoned. Suddenly, it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to pay for the health care, welfare, and housing of Central Americans — because they “need” it. The government is now paying up to $1,000 per bed for Central Americans and shuffling illegals around the country without telling local governments. When local populations protest that they are essentially having thousands of dependents dumped on them and their communities destroyed, libertarians like Hunter are there to call them “ugly.” How dare Americans who have been lied to for decades on this issue get angry!
Furthermore, to speak knowledgeably about immigration is to be automatically discredited. After all, what does it matter whether our laws are being violated, if gang members are being admitted, or if Barack Obama is (perish the thought) lying to us? What matters is “the children,” and simply accepting the propaganda and surrendering. Jack Hunter tells us to question authority when it comes to fighting terrorism abroad, but to shut up and take it when it comes to losing control of our own borders. Shallowness and ignorance becomes proof of virtue.
Before Lew Rockwell and other principled friends of liberty simply switched sides on immigration, it was the conventional position that libertarians should oppose welfare payments to illegals. Now, this seems less important than making sure libertarians are not associated with gross whites who have worry about things like sending their kids to good public schools. The fact that whites are mad about immigration is proof to some libertarians that they deserve to be destroyed anyway.
It bears repeating that mass immigration is not an example of state failure. It is state policy, backed by taxpayer dollars, relying on armed force that prevents local communities from defending themselves from invasion. The refugee “crisis” was coordinated by the government months in advance. More importantly, the churches that Hunter loves so much are not supporting immigration out of charity but because they are being funded to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars to provide welfare to foreigners. Clerical frauds brag about their righteousness while being funded by the very European-Americans they so fanatically hate. Mass immigration is just another example of Big Government.
Which, incidentally, Hispanics love. Hunter thinks that Hispanics don’t vote Republican because white conservatives are mean. Presumably, if Republicans just shut up and speak more nicely to Hispanics – perhaps in Spanish – the “natural conservatives” we hear about so much will come around. Of course, outside Fantasyland, we know that Hispanics vote for Democrats because they like big government and enjoy being the recipient of government privileges targeted at their race. If Hunter wants to win Hispanic votes, he needs to cut the crap about limited government and try to increase EBT payouts.
But that’s not really what it’s about. Hispanic Luis Guiterrez brags to the National Council of La Raza that amnesty will “punish” Americans who oppose illegal immigration. Other Hispanic elected officials openly described immigration as an act of racial conquest. Groups like the National Council of La Raza or the frankly ethnonationalist group MECHA receive funding from universities and governments and count elected officials as members. We will never see libertarians lift a finger in opposition, nor question the “tone” of those who shriek “Go Back to Europe” with their faces contorted in race hatred.
The fact is Hunter de facto approves of it. There’s nothing that nonwhites can do or say that will convince him at this point to speak in defense of whites as a collective people, or even as individuals free to dissent from multiculturalism. Contemporary libertarianism is simply an ever more elaborate series of excuses why whites can be punished collectively but only mobilize in their own interests as individuals.
And this is why libertarianism goes beyond simple misdirection, like American conservatism. Jack Hunter is a race cuck because he derives his self-image and contemporary status from his own degradation as a white man.
He could have resisted, but he chose not just to surrender, but to hurt other people who supported him. He is impatient that other whites are hesitant to join him in subjugation. And he approves of government action – even fantastically expansive and expensive government action – as long as it means breaking down the remnants of white America. As with most libertarians, cultural leftism is far more important than limited government.
It should be noted in conclusion that Jack Hunter’s erstwhile boss Rand Paul, the “white renegade of the year” for whom he sacrificed himself, is currently trying to get more black felons the right to vote. For his trouble, blacks are calling him “racially suspect.”
White advocates need to understand that race cucks are not doing this for reward or even social acceptability. Race cucks have learned to love the lash, to glory in their own diminishment, to hate only those of their own kind who refuse join them. There are those who will sooner set themselves afire than let us live in peace. The thought of defiance is so unthinkable that they emotionally savage those who resist in even the slightest way. That is what is so “embarrassing,” so “ugly,” and so utterly “revolting” about Jack Hunter and those like him. They don’t just refuse to fight in defense of their own. They actively struggle to make sure none of us will be allowed to escape.
15 comments
Once White elites abandoned the racial basis for politics, all external resistance was undermined. Whether we are talking about the collapse of the frontiers, the corruption of formerly populist leaders, the growth of urban gangs (consisting largely of “people of color”), or the increasingly inane foreign policy of the US–it all comes down to race.
To give a recent example: look at the beatification of Nelson Mandela, a convicted Marxist anti-white terrorist. (And let me note, one who spent most of his career in prison, so he doesn’t even qualify as an insurgent leader like bin Laden or even Mugabe.) Yet we see Mandela’s visage on posters and billboards throughout the Homeland (the one proclaiming how “one man can make a difference”).
What other people acts this insanely? Perhaps if one has been conquered and has to get get along with the new bosses, there’s a reason to genuflect before their icons. But the White collapse has occurred at the time when Western capitalism is dominant on the globe, when there are no serious military challengers to US-NATO nuclear-technological supremacy, when much of the formerly militant third world is now dancing on neo-colonial strings.
Imagine if the US were run by pro-White elites, how easy this “humanitarian crisis on the border” would have been to defuse. The invaders would never have gotten as far as the Rio Grande. Rather, a quick phone call to the satraps who run Central American countries, backed up by a light cruiser or two in the Caribbean, would have had the “children” stay put at home.
The rot goes back to the mid-20th century. De-colonization, the civil rights movement, 1968 in France. At the time, a few White leaders stood up and told the truth–George Wallace, Ian Smith, Enoch Powell. Truly men ahead of their time. And we should add in James Burnham whose “Suicide of the West” showed where things were going under post-modern liberalism.
As for libertarians: I would not write the movement off, not entirely. Reason magazine’s online comments section contains a healthy dose of race realist posts. It’s the elites who are selling out, “electing a new people” as the man once said. The rank and file knows this ain’t right.
When the multicult charges that the Tea Party or the NRA or whatever is “racist” they are right in a way they do not understand. These movements are composed primarily of white people fighting for their racial interests, even if on a level below conscious politics.
So there’s cause for optimism. If every other political movement has sold out, the opportunity is there for a White Nationalist movement to fill the void. The movement needs to awaken the consciousness of White people.
Thanks. I always find value in your comments.
Good comment overall except that just a few years ago Tea Party idiots were having a hard time controlling their premature ejaculation every time they were faced with the visage of Herman Cain.
I lost you at the Tea Party and libertarian reference. That’s ridiculous to assume these movements are subconscious supporters of ‘whiteness’ solely because they contain almost ninety-five percent disgruntled white supporters (the hippie movement was also predominantly white). I was in the Ron Paul movement (unfortunately); there was was nothing racial about this movement … it was a soulless protest against declining prosperity under other labels.
Concentrating on bringing back ‘the gold standard’ and ‘abolishing the fed’ (two moves I actually don’t think are a good idea in the modern economy, but I get the point) was a way for whites to funnel energy into a hopeless cause … maximum freedom equals maximum happiness. It’s actually a somewhat left-wing proposition, mixed in with anti-government sentiments.
Anyway, libertarianism doesn’t make any racial sense (glorification of the market creating optimal freedom). I don’t think Europeans take well to this ideology because they are realistic … it’s not a healthy expression of whiteness. Fascism/Patriarchy/Agrarianism is the farthest thing from libertarianism; we can’t equivocate on that point.
Superb article by Mr. Hood.
I must confess: I was a libertarian in my misspent youth, back in the late 80’s and early 90’s. At the time, and especially for a young person, it was easy to take the white racial and cultural foundations of America for granted. I remember that it felt like it would last forever. An error, of course, because as we’ve seen, these things can’t be taken for granted. They can in fact be destroyed quite easily. But at the time, it was an easy error to make. Again, I was very young (my best defense).
Back then, in the rank and file at least, it was easy to be a conservative libertarian, and in my experience, a rough majority of libertarians were.
But by now, it is pretty obvious to even the slightly aware that the white population is in serious trouble. It is now being displaced, not just from scattered neighborhoods here and there, but from entire regions. For many, if not most, whites, all one has to do is walk outside the front door to see the changes. For the lucky few for whom that is not particularly revealing, a quick review of census data should do the trick. The demographic changes are massive, and they are all at white expense.
Point is, that which is blindingly obvious today was not so clear just a couple of decades ago. Far sighted men could see what was coming, but not the typical guy on the ground. Libertarianism developed under one set of conditions, but now operates in a radically changed environment. Far from improving and responding positively to these changed conditions, libertarianism has become ever more hostile to whites.
I recall that in my youth, Southern California was known as a hotspot of libertarianism. No more. The brown and yellow tide has turned SoCal blue. Does this concern the libertarians in the slightest? That they were demographically washed away, swamped by non-white non-libertarians? Of course not. They never mention it; they couldn’t care less. Instead, they will hold their next gathering, which will be 99 percent white, and proceed as if it doesn’t matter if whites go extinct. One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Given the absurdity of it all, I suppose I’ll laugh.
Political groups are self-selecting, of course. The people who choose to call themselves libertarians today, knowing what we now know and facing the conditions that we now face, should be assumed to be in favor of white genocide. While there are no doubt exceptions, this has to be the default expectation. Today libertarianism should be seen for what it is: a purely destructive and ignorant force. It should be attacked and mocked as the pathetic anti-white ideology that it has in fact become. Hood has made an excellent contribution toward that very important work.
Welcome back.
Exactly. Why do WNs go out of their way to find assumed commonality with their fellow whites which they do not actually share? When did limited government become a code word for whiteness? I was a libertarian for a time, but only because it was the only available American political movement that wasn’t completely intellectually bankrupt. Sure, many right wing people, even Evola (who was once interested in anarchism and Dadaism), go through a libertine stretch in their youth.
But, grown men, who are libertarians, especially activists, are not our friends. They don’t like ‘order’ from above, nor do they understand the concept of self-sacrifice for ideals. If they did, I doubt they would be libertarians. I could feel that the logic of libertarianism was spiritually vacuous from the day I started working in the office of a libertarian campaign office when my boss gleefully mentioned that Dr. Paul was pro-black because he was against the war on drugs.
By the way, Senator Rand Paul is a total sell out supporting Romney and posing every other week at schools populated by minorities (as if his kids are going there); but that’s what he believe in … the market!
The antifas are currently doing a lot of damage to the animal rights movement with their latest tirade http://libcom.org/news/anti-fascists-boycott-neo-nazi-vegan-cake-shop-24072014 The quality of our diet has collapsed as farms are turned into factories, antibiotics are faltering because of misuse and the horrid treatment of lab animals is seeping out into the streets where people are now randomly subject to the same nastiness.
And Hunter and his associates runnable to face reality drift of into fantasyland – safer, I guess.
Very well said.
Jack Hunter and his boss Rand Paul have turned full renegade traitors. They will dres their treason up in all kinds of intellectual disguises, race denying Libertarianism being the most recent disguise.
No Israeli or Japanese leader, “conservative” intellectual would ever dare attempt this.
I am proud to have been one of those who first outed Rand Paul and suggested American Renaissance resume. Instauration Magazine’s annual White Renegade traitor of the year and make Rand Paul the winner/loser for 2013.
This is a power game folks. We simply have to find ways to punish terrible traitors like Jack Hunter and Rand Paul.
Regards,
Jack Ryan
http://Www.occidentaldissent.com
Greg, I noticed your use of ‘white advocates’. Do you still use the WN’st designation?
Yes, I do and so does Gregory Hood.
This is first rate writing and thinking!!!! Probably the strongest dosage I’ve seen here? Via therebel.org. Some writings home right in on things like this one but mostly without its sanctified sarcasm and right-on rapier wit!
PS Thank you — THANK YOU — for not forcing us to go through evil Facebook or any other third party to post here. THANK YOU!
I am a big fan of Hood. He’s wonderfully spiteful, brutally to the point, clever in his delivery and a master at proving a point–mostly in an embarrassing and humbling way to the subject.
I’ve wanted to say these very things so many times. I’ve thought them! But have never been able to put it like this!
Great essay, GH.
If that is Jack Hunter in the photo he should really change his 1983 hairstyle.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.