|
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.
|