Press "Enter" to skip to content

‘White nationalist’ Web site criticizes Barr on immigration

The fiercely anti-immigration Web site,, accuses “born again libertarian” Bob Barr of backsliding on his anti-immigration stance.

VDare columnist, Marcus Epstein, lauds the anti-libertarian immigration record Bob Barr established as a member of Congress, which includes the following:

  • Co-sponsoring legislation to cut the number of H-1B visas in half
  • Co-sponsoring a bill to eliminate birthright citizenship, “chain immigration,” and limiting the total number of legal immigrants to 300,000 per year
  • Voting to put soldiers on the border
  • Voting against amnesty in 2001, and the 245(i) “mini-amnesty,” among others

But now Epstein is worried that Barr’s “libertarian conversion” on issues like privacy, civil liberties, and “homosexual marriage,” may also indicate a liberalization of his immigration views.

Epstein takes issue with the Libertarian Party’s platform plank on immigration, and says Barr endorses it. Of particular concern to Epstein is the LP’s assertion that the status quo “restricts the labor pool,” indicating to Epstein that the LP — and by proxy, Barr — wants more legal immigration.

[B]ased on [Barr’s] recent statements, I get the unmistakable impression that he no longer sees mass immigration as a problem at all.

Epstein concludes his column by suggesting that Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin, will have the “patriotic immigration reform vote” all to himself.

Note: VDare’s FAQ addresses the question “is VDare white nationalist?” They say they are not, but recognize that some of their contributors are. Many people would consider VDare “white nationalist” (hence the reason to address the question in their FAQ), which is why I have used the term in “quotes.” Please read VDare’s FAQ response for balance.


  1. RedPhillips RedPhillips May 20, 2008

    Come on. VDARE is not white nationalist, although people who could be fairly described as such write there. VDARE is immigration restrictionist, and it is hostile to the liberal notion of a proposition nation, as every conservative should be. But the site itself is not necessarily nationalistic. A lot of paleos, who reject nationalism in favor of regionalism and localism, write there.

    Oops. Just saw your note. White nationalist, while a fairly accurate description of some, is basically a slur word meant to delegitimize so as not to have to actually deal with an argument. What is the point of using it at all? Even in quotes?

    BTW, I think requiring registration will drastically cut down on your comments.

  2. RedPhillips RedPhillips May 20, 2008

    P.S. Thanks for the link to Conservative Heritage Times.

  3. G.E. G.E. Post author | May 20, 2008

    Red – We’re still working out the kinks here, and for now, the posts are being made anonymously. I’m going to get these problems fixed when I get back from Denver. But I posted this particular article, and I admit that it was questionable to use the term “White Nationalist,” even in quotes. But hey, it provoked a comment from you, didn’t it?? 🙂

    What part does VDARE object to, or do you object to on their behalf? The white part or the nationalist part? They are nationalists and they are white, or am I missing something? I’d say the common perception of what they espouse, and the way in which they espouse it, would qualify as “white nationalism,” which is why they need to answer the charge at their FAQ. Does the Constitution Party have a “are we white nationalists?” question at their page? No, because nobody thinks that of them.

  4. G.E. G.E. Post author | May 20, 2008

    As for cutting down on the comments: So far, it looks like you’re right. But I think our problem right now may relate to low traffic rather than people unwilling to register. We’re giving this a trial period. If it can work out, it would be nice to not have to put up with the imposters, trolls, and spammers from TPW.

  5. RedPhillips RedPhillips May 20, 2008

    Clearly VDARE thinks it is legitimate to consider the issue of demographic change when thinking about immigration. Yes they worry that America’s demographic core is being diluted. But this should be a conservative concern even if someone doesn’t harbor the slightest bit of animosity toward any other race. It is only liberal PC dogma that makes this not an intuitive conservative concern. (What change that conservatives supposedly resist could be more fundamental than wholesale demographic change?) Even some mainstream conservatives such as Anne Coulter and Jonah Goldberg have conceded that it is legitimate to be concerned about large scale, rapid demographic change?

    The use of the word “white” is not meant to inform. To be an informative adjective modifying the word nationalist. It is meant to suggest hate, racism, etc. and hence end debate.

    As for nationalists, some are, but many are not. The GOP and the modern “conservative” movement are actually nationalistic. It elevates national identity above regional identity. It reflexively supports military adventures. It defers to the executive. Etc. So-called White Nationalists recognize they are categorically different than paleos, because they are often critical of paleos. That their localism is outdated, unworkable, even subversive. See where someone stands on Lincoln and you will get a good idea of whether they are a nationalist or a paleos. (This is imperfect because regional loyalties still exist. There are some anti-Lincoln nationalists who are from the South.) Also, see where they stand on upholding the American mythos. Was nuking Japan justified or a war crime? Was our treatment of the Indians justified or abominable? Nationalists have a need to uphold the mythos and see questioning the mythos as unpatriotic. Regionalist paleos see the mythos as a prop of the current regime.

    VDARE doesn’t really take a side on these things. It is a rather single issue immigration restrictionist site.

  6. G.E. G.E. Post author | May 20, 2008

    Red – You and I come down on the same side of almost every issue, even if our positions are derived from vastly different principles. But immigration is one issue where our core philosophies result in radically, perhaps diametrically opposed, viewpoints.

    First, let me address the question, is VDARE nationalist? You say “kinda but kinda not.” I disagree. They most certainly are. They’re not concerned about people migrating from Iowa to Missouri. They’re concerned about people migrating from outside of the nation to inside the nation. There concern is “national,” not regional. It is based not on economic concerns, nor on private-property rights, but on concern for “others” and their “otherness.” It is a COLLECTIVIST, not an individualist, concern. And the collective in question is most certainly the “nation,” if not the “white race.” Yes, I find VDARE to be offensive to my sensibilities, but I don’t think I’m liberal or PC.

    What are “demographic” changes? To those concerned with individuality and property rights, they are no matter for concern. This shows the busy-body epistemology shared by statist liberals and conservatives, even paleos — concern with and desire to regulate the nonviolent behaviors of others, and willingness to use the coercive power of government to achieve those ends.

  7. mlirshfl mlirshfl May 21, 2008

    Wow! White nationalists! What a cute name and original. Can’t stop the blacks from voting, eating the same cafe, drinking from the same fountain, or God forbid marrying my daughter! Before you start I am not Black, White, Spanish, or any other kind of alien. I usually check other when asked about my race and insert American. How long ago did your ancestors come to America? Probable to long ago to count. So are also about being non Gay or non woman? You guys use big words but don’t know a thing about America. Shut up and put you comments on that other rag the Third Party Watch.

  8. G.E. G.E. Post author | May 21, 2008


  9. Trent Hill Trent Hill May 22, 2008


  10. thomas miller thomas miller May 22, 2008


    I’ve read Dr. Phillips’ comments at the Chronicles magazine website many times, and he has never uttered a word that could be construed as “white nationalist” (for that matter, except for a few interlopers from Storm Front who wander in there from time to time, that is the norm among Chronicles readers). I agree with Dr. Phillips, “white nationalist” is a silly and slanderous label, unless one is talking about genuine, swastika-flying neo-nazis, something that certainly does not describe anyone who writes at Vdare. And what kind of definition for white nationalist is “they support nationalism, and they’re white?!” Believe it or not, there are black folks who support the same bad ol’ agenda as the Vdare crowd. By your definition, that would make them “Black Nationalists”.

  11. G.E. G.E. Post author | May 22, 2008

    If a group, largely populated by blacks, espoused the same views as VDARE and used a black deer as its logo to symbolize the first African born on the continent, then yes, I would consider “black nationalists” an appropriate term.

    You say “white nationalist” is silly and slanderous, and doesn’t describe anyone who writes as VDARE — but VDARE’s own FAQ disagrees.

    Look, I used the term “white nationalist” and put it in quotes and then offered a disclaimer. Any organization that sees fit to address the question “are we white nationalists?” certainly deserves the distinction in quotes — literally, I mean.

  12. Austin Cassidy Austin Cassidy May 22, 2008

    When in doubt, let’s ask Wikipedia:

    “The viewpoints on the site range from immigration reduction to anti-immigrant opinions to white nationalism.”

    The name’s origin is a little weird too…

    “The name VDARE and the site’s symbol, the head of a white doe, refer to Virginia Dare, the first child born to English immigrants in the New World. Soon after her birth she disappeared with the rest of an early English settlement, and legend says she transformed into a white doe.”

  13. Jan Rogozinski Jan Rogozinski May 22, 2008

    The disease underlying all problems in the USA is excess self-esteem. Everyone believes that he was born knowing all there is to know. Thus no one investigates or even observes reality before opining.

    There is no sense in which the word nationalism fits Vdare. They do not want to create a country comprised solely of Vdarers.

    The best example of nationalism and racism today is contemporary Jews, who will do anything and everything to increase the wealth and power of Israel, “the Jewish state” and Jewish nation.

    Another example would be the Flemings in Belgium. Or the Scotch Nationalist party, who want Scotland to be an independent country.

    For earlier examples of nationalism, study the period from about 1850 through 1914.

    Vdarers simply want to secure America’s borders to keep out criminals, drug peddlers, and terrorists. If you were to do a tad small bit of investigation, you would find that most Americans of any race agree with them.

    Gee, I thought this was going to be an objective and non-biased web-site. Enough with the PC already. Words should be used to accurately describe reality; you should not use them inaccurately and as weapons. Remember that folk only use ad hominem arguments when they cannot refute the other side’s argument because it is correct and unattackable..

  14. antiwar antiwar May 22, 2008

    VDare goes beyond wanting to “secure our borders.”

    Their writers include a number of self-proclaimed “racialists.”

    In this article from last week, they attack Ron Paul for distancing himself from the racist parts of his old newsletters, and go further to denounce for recent articles attacking racism and other forms of collectivism.

    These guys represent just another form of statism, one that wants to use state power to protect them from the scary dark-skinned “inferior” people. They reject property rights when it comes to “the national question.”

    This sort of collectivism is pathetic. While claiming to discriminate, they actually have no ability to do so, believing that skin color is the primary indicator of value. They reject the painful ordeal of rational analysis, opting instead to base their decisions about people and things at quick and superficial impressions.

  15. adr2689 adr2689 May 22, 2008

    As a factual contribution, I asked Congressman Barr on his recent visit to England whether or not he was in favour of limiting migration; the only restrictions, he insisted, ought to be on those people who might pose a security threat or who possessed a communicable disease – anybody with verifiable documentation proving their identity should be allowed in. In particular, when pressed, he emphasised that there ought to be no discrimination or limitations on immigrations on ‘cultural’ or economic grounds – ie, nationalist or protectionist ones.

    On the normative point, G.E. on 20/05/08, 7:33 is spot on. Restricting immigration for whatever reason is collectivist, and ought to be rejected regardless of the reason behind this collectivism.

  16. thomas miller thomas miller May 22, 2008

    With all your talk about “collectivist” immigration-restrictionists, you sound like the flip side of communist ideologues. Some “alternative” to the mainstream political news sources this outfit is.

  17. antiwar antiwar May 22, 2008

    I never called immigration-restrictionists “collectivist.” I was referring to self-proclaimed “racialists.” I believe many immigration-restrictionists are not collectivists. My point was that VDare’s agenda goes beyond immigration.

    Whether you are reading mainstream or alternative media, it is important to actually read and not pretend that you are reading something else.

    Now you can go off an pout again about how this is not an “alternative” source since some people here don’t agree with you.

  18. G.E. G.E. Post author | May 22, 2008

    Jan Rogozinski – If characterizing VDARE as “white nationalist” in QUOTES is the least objective thing IPR ever does, I think our reputation will be fine.

    As Austin points out — even wikipedia says they’re “white nationalist.” It doesn’t mean they are, it means that some people SAY they are. Which is WHY it was in QUOTES. Get it? That IS objective reporting.

  19. antiwar antiwar May 22, 2008

    The VDare article I cited actually talks about the “national question,” and they attack,, and, on that question:

    “But we must face the sad fact that they are now completely useless on that National Question.”

    They are attacking those of us who criticize racism. Read the article in question:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.