A broken man is no longer a man. Few things degrade the human spirit more than watching another person debase himself. To view the spectacle somehow degrades you, for even passive participation in something so wretched taints your very soul.
After all, a man is characterized by his actions, his beliefs, his deeds. A woman can be valued for her own sake, but masculinity is an accomplishment, not an inherent characteristic. To put it flippantly, the Big Lebowski asked if being a man meant, “Being prepared to do the right thing — whatever the cost?” To which The Dude responded — “Sure, that and a pair of testicles.”
Sadly, we have to look at a broken man who lacks both of those qualities — disgraced political columnist Jack Hunter.
Jack Hunter, the erstwhile Southern Avenger, was an important voice in the early years of the Alternative Right, a solider in the Buchanan Brigades, and an early popularizer of libertarian ideas during the initial breakout of Ron Paul. He became a key aide to Senator Rand Paul and a sort of ambassador to the libertarian grassroots, keeping the restive legions of liberty firmly behind Rand Paul and the strategy of “playing the game” in the Beltway.
However, an organized action by, shall we say, “the neoconservative tribe” and their liberal kin drove Jack Hunter from his job with the revelation that he once said sensible things about immigration, multiculturalism, and race. Hunter fell on his sword to protect Rand Paul from charges of “racism” in preparation for his 2016 presidential run. Paul is now opening the Republican Party’s “African-American Engagement Office” in Detroit, furthering the charge by some observers that American conservatism is not a political movement at all, but a form of performance art owing more to Dadaism than Edmund Burke.
Having thrown himself under the bus to save his chief, Hunter has now re-emerged to throw everyone who once supported him in the same place. In one of the most sickening displays of emasculation since Abu Ghraib, Hunter has written “Confessions of a Right Wing Shock Jock” for Politico, in which Hunter admits that he said “racist things,” but only to be part of the larger conservative movement.
In this, Hunter crosses a serious moral line. It is one thing to sacrifice yourself. It’s admirable to give your enemies what they want and to destroy your own reputation in order to safeguard a cause you believe in. You might even call it noble. But for Jack Hunter to cast aspersions on former friends and allies, to so obsequiously surrender, to make fools of every person who wrote in his defense shows that he values the opinions of people who hate him far more than people who took risks to defend him.
Hunter traces his career as a right wing “shock jock” who invented the persona of the “Southern Avenger” in order to win an audience. As part of this, he called for Spike Lee to be “whipped” for criticizing Mel Gibson’s film The Patriot, toasted John Wilkes Booth, and most dangerously, worried about “racial double standards” for white people and said a “non-white majority would simply cease to be America.”
Hunter assures us that his views have “changed dramatically.” Presumably, he now believes that the The Patriot, an embarrassingly PC movie which features Southern plantation owners that employ free black labor, is actually a “racist whitewash.” Abraham Lincoln apparently is a great friend of the South now. And most importantly, “racial double standards” for white people actually don’t exist, and America remains America, regardless of the actual people who make it up.
Therefore, Hunter engages in a full cringe. He denounces the “stupid and offensive” things he said. He bemoans “insensitive” remarks he once uttered about illegal immigrants and Muslims. Going further, he berates himself for having said “terrible things.” Without giving examples, he moans, “I disavow them.” Presumably, he is so desperate not to be called a racist, he will simply disavow whatever they tell him to.
But Hunter crosses a line into outright immorality with one charge: “Let’s be honest — my commentary wasn’t all that different from what more mainstream conservatives were saying — at the time and still today.” With this, we learn why Politico published him — it is an opportunity to play the familiar game of “linking” conservatism to white racism. More importantly, the effect of the piece is to perpetuate that linkage — not end it. The typical reader will take away that the Republican Party is racist, that Hunter was complicit in — and prospered because — of that racism and that the new anti-racist libertarians are challenging the racist Republican base.
Of course, the evidence Hunter gives is weak. Hunter writes, “Is our border-security problem really part of a La Raza takeover of the United States, as some have speculated? As I once speculated?” Well, probably not, since it’s more a cheap labor lobby takeover of the United States, assisted by Hunter’s left-libertarian useful idiots. However, there are plenty of chapters of the explicitly racialist Hispanic student group MEChA that receive millions of dollars in student funding on campuses around the country. They explicitly defend the idea of “La Raza” and dream of expelling every non-member of the “cosmic race” from their new ethnostate, but we know damn well that not a single libertarian student group will look up from whining about drugs and gay marriage to so much as criticize them.
Furthermore, we know “mainstream” politicians like Cruz Bustamante or Antonio Villaraigosa will never be held to account for their membership in such a group. It’s also true that Hispanics, empowered by racial collectivism, will largely govern the American Southwest if demographic trends continue and continue to use the state to transfer wealth away from whites towards their own racial group as part of racial socialism.
“Is it necessary to call Barack Obama a food stamp President?” Well, under Barack Obama, the use of food stamps has soared, and even his new healthcare plan will increase usage. It’s certainly accurate to call him that if nothing else. It’s also true that Barack Obama’s majority is openly advertised as the triumph of government-dependent minorities over the historic American nation.
“Do we need to portray Obama as a secret Kenyan-Muslim-communist consumed by anti-colonial rage?” Well, actually, this is a veiled reference to the work of conservative minority mascot Dinesh D’Souza. His “anti-colonial” interpretation of Obama is an attempt at triangulation against the real truth that Obama’s polices are motivated by his contempt for the white race.
As Steve Sailer exhaustively documented in his reviews of Obama’s two autobiographies (which evidently only he has read), Obama’s policies are all American, in the kind of animus blacks feel for the legacy of Western Civilization, which, as Barack Obama himself put it, “just wasn’t mine.” The conservative movement and its non-white tokens may need to think of conspiracy theories to explain it, but the truth is far simpler. As Jack’s onetime hero Sam Francis said, they hate us “not because we are ‘Americans’ or ‘Christians’ or ‘conservatives’ or ‘liberals,’ but because we are white,” and created all the things they never could.
Hunter goes on to show that Ron Paul attacking government was a revelation for him, because it showed that “government” was the problem. Meanwhile, Hunter cries, “conservatives, including me, had spent years scapegoating Hispanic immigrants themselves.” Well, better not tell Ron Paul, who condemned Mexican flag waving “lawbreakers” who didn’t “assimilate culturally” and leeched off social services. He also called for more government resources to stop immigration. Paul also tended to take a strong stand on the issue when he was running for election, as did his Senator son.
Hunter concludes that conservatives need to pay more attention to the idea that racism is actually a problem and create a “broader, more diverse coalition of conservatives — including more minorities.” Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Republican base — the dreaded “Tea Party” that the media treats as a proto-Klan — was ready to give a former pizzaman the party’s presidential nomination on the grounds that he was black until his campaign collapsed amidst charges of repeated affairs. Lloyd Marcus’s minstrel show continues to draw at Tea Party events. Glenn Beck continues to host his television shows on the “black Founding Fathers” that the racist Democrats are evidently covering up. Hunter is attacking a straw man image of racist conservatives — because the existing conservative movement is already composed of weak men of straw, without strength, without principle, and without even the ability to stand on their own.
Most importantly, he follows the typical Beltway Conservative model of attacking his own supporters. There is no mention of why libertarianism should appeal to whites. There is no mention of sympathy for the white Southerners being dispossessed by the Muslims and Hispanics he claims to love. There’s certainly no acceptance of white racial collectivism in the same way that he claims libertarians should appeal to monolithic blocks of “blacks” and “Hispanics.”
The tragedy of Jack Hunter is he’s not some “new libertarian.” He’s just like the rest of them. He once showed potential as someone who could be a leader. But now, we know every word he’s ever going to say. “The drug war is racist!” “Government surveillance and the military is bad!” “The real problem with immigration is the government!” We’ve heard it all before. He’s not breaking from the Beltway Right — he’s fulfilling its role of training whites to be polite losers.
Even his mea culpa is formulaic. Hunter’s bold departure from conservatism simply recycles the same old conservative rhetoric. What, after all the clichés of “limited government” and “freedom,” distinguishes Jack Hunter from Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck? The only difference is that Hunter combines these trite illusions with the rhetoric of a university sensitivity seminar, arguing that whites cannot saying anything “insensitive” to minority mascots. The resulting liberal clichés scattered throughout his rambling, lazily written piece sound like they were spat out by an especially hurried intern at Wonkette. The thought that minorities have interests of their own and oppose libertarianism because they support racial socialism and the state transfer of white resources to nonwhite populations seems to never have occurred to Jack Hunter.
And this is why he is still a racist. Once you concede the ground of “white privilege” and “racism,” you have to follow up with compensatory policies, otherwise you are just a patronizing asshole. If white racism is a real problem, why shouldn’t the state redistribute income, regulate how businesses are run, and supervise state governments to make sure white Southerners don’t get uppity? Unless he repeals his policy prescriptions, Jack Hunter still bears the mark of Cain.
Even in the comments section of the article, gleeful liberals are piling on, calling him a racist, saying he has not done enough, and linking him to the broader Republican Party. Even “disavowing” your beliefs and everything else that other people think is offensive gives you nothing. Jack Hunter has not expanded his audience, appealed to minorities, or gained a respectful hearing. He’s simply disgusted his former allies and inspired justified scorn in his ideological enemies. After all, how you can respect or listen to a man who was so easily broken because someone called him a name?
When all is said and done, after crafting hundreds of columns, laboring over each particular word, spending thousands of hours of lobbying, networking, schmoozing and boozing, after bending the knee, burning the pinch of incense to the Establishment’s gods, disavowing everything he once believed, and even after renouncing his very name — he will still be known as Jack Hunter, racist.
Beyond that, he will be forgotten. His confession has meant nothing.
Why Jack, it profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. . . but for Rand Paul?