The Antifa Avenger Rides Again
Posted By Gregory Hood On In North American New Right | Comments Disabled
[1]1,820 words
“The way some conservatives talk about the border children is racist and revolting [2].” Is it a headline from Salon.com? Or from the parody twitter account [3] banned for too closely resembling the original?
Nope. It’s everyone’s favorite left-libertarian race cuck [4], Jack Hunter, the Antifa [5] 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 [6]. 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 [7] site Rare.us, a kind of a low rent Buzzfeed [8] 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 [9]” in the title. Also following the template is Hunter’s lack of any facts – just whiny attempts at moral shaming [10].
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 [11]. However, like Nancy Pelosi [12], Hunter feels he can invoke Christianity [13] 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 [14] 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 [15] “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 [16], 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 [17] are using Border Patrol stations as recruitment hubs [18]. And while everyone tells [19] 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 [20] by professional black Jamelle Bouie. As even National Review’s excruciatingly PC Kevin Williamson [21] admits, Bouie’s entire professional output can be summarized [22] as “Jamelle Bouie calls somebody a racist!” The fact is that illegals are bringing in diseases, including those which are leading to lifelong consequences [23] 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 [24]. 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 [25] — 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 [26] 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 [27] 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 [28].
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 [29] 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 [30] to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars [31] 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 [32]. 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 [33] to the National Council of La Raza that amnesty will “punish” Americans who oppose illegal immigration. Other Hispanic elected officials openly [34] described immigration as an act of racial conquest. Groups like the National Council of La Raza or the frankly ethnonationalist [35] 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 [36], 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 [37] “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 [38] 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.