← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust

Thread 364

Thread ID: 364 | Posts: 27 | Started: 2002-04-05

Wayback Archive

Faust [OP]

2002-04-05 04:49 | User Profile

My Trial Balloon Immigrants and socialism.

Some of the worst trash I have ever read!

Jonah Goldberg

July 18, 2001 6:10 p.m.

I was going to write about immigration today. I wrote about it in my syndicated column yesterday and I figured, I'd get some extra bang out of my research buck. But about half way into this column, I changed my mind. I decided, instead, that I want to float a theory I've been thinking about for a while but have been reluctant to mention because every time I do thousands of spiders with cat heads crawl all over my body. Oh wait that's what happens when I take really bad acid. Actually every time I try to write about it, I come across racist. Intrigued? Follow me.

I think immigrants fight off socialism.

"Whaaaaat!?" You can almost hear the nativists scream. Well bear with me.

Have you ever noticed that those countries which are ethnically more homogeneous than the United States ? i.e. virtually all of them ? are more socialist than America? A couple years ago I went to Switzerland on a fascinating (and phat) junket. One of the things that shocked me the most was how huge their welfare state is. This allegedly free-market, pro-business nation was in fact deeply socialist. Oh, I don't mean in the Marxist sense. I mean in the Swedish, Euro-twerp sense. There are almost no Horatio Algers, let alone Bill Gates in Switzerland ? and even fewer in France, Austria Belgium, etc, etc. There are a bunch of very successful corporations which operate on a global scale and in almost symbiotic accord with the government. The system there is set up for big business to thrive, but there's almost no chance that the little guy will ever grow so big as to even annoy a Nestle or Credit Suisse.

Even better, for the big guys, such regulations form a barrier to entry for the little guys. Say you have 499 employees in your small business. The Feds say all businesses with 500 or more workers must be wheelchair accessible, provide health benefits to gay "spouses," pay for sex-change operations, and offer drug-abuse counseling and you can de damn sure that you won't be hiring that 500th employee for quite a while.

The failure to recognize this dynamic is one of the chief examples of how left-wing corporation-haters don't know what they're talking about).

Anyway, that's not the point. Switzerland also has a generous social-safety net. Fat pensions, childcare subsidies etc. Indeed, much of Europe is designed as if Hillary Clinton ruled everything west of the Urals. Even our beloved friends in Fair Britannia do not consider the term "welfare state" to have any negative connotations.

One of the reasons this has been politically feasible in Europe is that Europeans are a bunch of boneheads when it comes to economics. But another reason ? according to my theory ? is that race hasn't been much of an issue. Politically, it's a lot easier to support a safety net when the safety net only helps people just like you. In fact, I bet you anything one of the reasons why "welfare reform" is gaining ground in Europe is because Europe is filling up with Asian and African immigrants and all of a sudden the "enlightened" Euro weenies don't see the benefit in writing checks to poor brown and yellow people when they were just delighted to keep white folks on the dole for generations.

Meanwhile, let's face it, one of the main reasons European-style welfare never caught on in the United States is that it seemed to go disproportionately to black folks. Actually, "seemed" is diplomatic cover for the fact that welfare did disproportionately go to black folks ? and still does. In fact in the 1960s the National Welfare Rights Organization, worked on the explicit assumption that welfare was a form of reparations for slavery. George Wiley, the head of NWRO, used the mantra "Welfare is a Right, not a Privilege."

In a sense skin color served as a dye-marker for the failures of the well-intentioned but disastrous policies of New Deal and Great Society liberalism. We spent trillions on the poor, who were disproportionately black, and there was very little to show for it. I'm not even sure people would have noticed if it weren't for the fact that it was apparent that the black underclass was actually getting worse because of, rather than in spite of, the erosion of the family and work ethics caused by welfare.

Indeed, that's one of the reasons so many foreign countries make it difficult to become naturalized. Once you're a citizen, you qualify for the same generous benefits that the white folks got. In Switzerland, for example, foreign-born residents have to stand on one leg, sing the alphabet backwards and recount from memory all of the rookie players in the 1943 Negro leagues, just to get a citizenship form.

The fact that ethnic homogeneity is conducive to socialism was also given credence ? according to my still theoretical theory ? by the experience of our old friend Pat Buchanan. It turns out that as Pat became more isolationist he also grew more anti-free market. Watching Pat, it became pretty clear that you can't be against immigration and opposed to free trade without also becoming more and more sympathetic to subsidies and various social welfare programs (after all trade barriers are subsidies to domestic businesses).

By the end of his self-destructive hoo-ha he was supporting caps on executive pay, boosts in unemployment benefits and deploring the "harshness" of the free market. Buchanan's toughest critics called him a Nazi because of his racial and ethnic views, and that was more than a little unfair (though he seemed to enjoy, foolishly, goading people into making such charges).

But, Buchanan notwithstanding, it bears repeating that the Nazis were, after all, socialists.

Open the Borders, Shut Down the Government So, let's get back to immigration for a second.

If we could guarantee the permanent abolition of pretty much everything associated with the welfare state and multiculturalism ? including welfare, affirmative action, quotas, set-asides, bilingual education, self-esteem training, various state-sponsored ethnic pride months, and all the academic "centers" for the study of Indian Marxist Lesbians who hate white folks but love Paris ? I would actually sign on with the Wall Street Journal's "open borders" position (those guys, God bless'em, want a constitutional amendment stating "there shall be open borders." I am not making this up).

Take America out of the equation for a second. Assuming you are a good classical liberal type, what kind of country would you design from scratch? My guess, if you think about it, would be one with a profoundly small government with a clearly stated, nigh-upon absolute, respect for contracts and property rights. It would be colorblind and would not at all interfere in your business or personal dealings so long as you respected the rights of others and your contractual obligations. You know what I'm getting at.

Well, no. Caucasians are just as susceptible to the asinine socialist gene as blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc. Invite a random pool of Swedes and Belgians and pretty soon Liberty City will head down the crapper to become New Santa Monica.

Would you invite just Asians? Well, no, for pretty much the same reasons. Ditto blacks, Europeans, Eskimos, etc. etc.

Now you might invite just Jews or Muslims or Christians if you were setting up Godburg. But that's an entirely different proposition.

No, if you wanted the right kind of citizens for Liberty City, you would invite anybody and everybody who found the idea of living in total freedom with no governmental safety net very attractive. It would be like open tryouts for a football team ? or for these purposes a wrestling team (a sport with a less crypto-fascist organization). Anyone who could hack it made the team. Everyone else gets sent packing. No tears.

After all. As with sports, if you insist on only signing white players, Jackie Robinson will go elsewhere (this lesson is lost on some quarters of the Right where, for example, NR's Ramesh Ponnuru is shunned in part, it seems, because he's of Indian descent ? despite the fact he's as much a citizen as you or I and, more tellingly, a proponent of curtailing immigration).

Well, this describes my ideological approach to immigration. It also explains how profoundly pernicious the racial group-rights, welfare-state stuff really from my perspective.

But the ideal remains the same. Anyway, that's my theory. If you would like to receive the Goldberg File via e-mail, please send a blank e-mail to GoldbergFile-subscribe@topica.com. In order to ensure that you are not accidentally subscribed, you will receive a confirmation message. Once you reply, you will be added to the Goldberg File. To unsubscribe send a blank e-mail to GoldbergFile-unsubscribe@topica.com.

Unexpurgated

2002-04-05 09:44 | User Profile

Such brilliant notions of sovereignty and statesmanship should be couriered, post-haste to Ariel Sharon!

Oops, I forgot. National suicide is only for the goyim...

Sertorius

2002-04-05 13:05 | User Profile

[quote=Faust,April 04 2002,22:49]

Faust,

My reaction can be summed up as @#^%&^@!! What tripe!!

** Even better, for the big guys, such regulations form a barrier to entry for the little guys. Say you have 499 employees in your small business. The Feds say all businesses with 500 or more workers must be wheelchair accessible, provide health benefits to gay "spouses," pay for sex-change operations, and offer drug-abuse counseling and you can de damn sure that you won't be hiring that 500th employee for quite a while.

The failure to recognize this dynamic is one of the chief examples of how left-wing corporation-haters don't know what they're talking about).**

He`s right about this in the sense that this is true. A multinational can afford the cost of regulation. In fact, there are some like Enron that lobbied for the Global Warming treaty. Goldberg only brought his up as a way to sell his stupid idea to the lemmings. He knows that the poison that he is peddling will benefit primarily the folks he falsly decries above. Goldberg deceit.

Dont you just love this hypocritical Khazar with the second rate mind. Since when it the hell has Goldberg ever shown any concern with "Main Street?" Goldberg has always been a whore for the multinationals. If he wasnt he wouldnt support "free" trade or open borders. Incidently, we already have a "Liberty City" It is part of Miami and what happen there 22 years ago would happen again in Goldbergs third world slum that he dreams of in his bullsh*t column.

If this multicultural nightmare is so hot then I suggest that Goldberg suggest to [color=blue]Israel[/color] that they try it first. After all, Jews like Goldberg love to lecture the rest of us about "tolerance," "understanding," and about how they, "god`s chosen people" have such a rich six thousand year old history that makes them so much superior to the rest of us. If this is such a damn good idea then let them show us goyim by their example first!

Let`s see them apply their "wisdom" with the Palestinians.

Goldberg and others like him haven`t learned one thing about 11 September. Not one damn thing otherwise they would quit trying to play this stupid trick on us.

amundsen

2002-04-05 15:31 | User Profile

What nonsense. The US is the largest socialist/fascist state in the world. Lets remember this much, at least the average worker bee in Europe can take a months vacation each year and really relax. Moreover, they dont have to work nights, weekends, holidays, or holy days as so many poor Americans are forced to for crummy wages. The regulations in America may be less then in Europe, but we were always playing catchup to them. We'll be there soon enough.

Frederick William I

2002-04-06 08:08 | User Profile

**Quote** (Faust @ April 04 2002,22:49)

I think immigrants fight off socialism. "Whaaaaat!?" You can almost hear the nativists scream. Well bear with me.** Doesn't take him long to get there.

**Quote**

Have you ever noticed that those countries which are ethnically more homogeneous than the United States ? i.e. virtually all of them ? are more socialist than America? ** Actually virtually every country is. You can which way he's going. Brazil is just as socialist politically, but however they are so poor, they can't afford a welfare net. ÃÂ So you see the real agenda of neo-con Frankfurt Schoolism. ÃÂ A society so poor because of constant cultural/societal infighting and strife - they can't afford a social net. And incidentally, where life is so hard, and everybody is so busy fighting each other, they can't get together to ficus on those factors (and peoples) keeping them poor. Any ideas who those might be?

**Quote**

(You can see this dynamic in the United States too. The really big corporations don't care that much about new OSHA or ADA or minimum-wage laws and regulations because IBM and GE are so big they can pass the costs of such measures on to their consumers. Even better, for the big guys, such regulations form a barrier to entry for the little guys. Say you have 499 employees in your small business. The Feds say all businesses with 500 or more workers must be wheelchair accessible, provide health benefits to gay "spouses," pay for sex-change operations, and offer drug-abuse counseling and you can de damn sure that you won't be hiring that 500th employee for quite a while. The failure to recognize this dynamic is one of the chief examples of how left-wing corporation-haters don't know what they're talking about).** Also one of the right-wing corporation lovers, who love people lke Bill Gates. ÃÂ Baby Jonah can't even understand what he's saying himself.

**Quote**

The Marxists have it right. Race does get in the way of class. Even in Democratic nations, the more "pure" the racial make-up, the more likely the people will be to vote for a fat safety net. The Swedes liked being socialists because there was no "other" group on the social tit (giggle). But let's just see how generous they are when a few hundred thousand North Africans move in. Proposition 187 will seem like multicultural appreciation week.... If we could guarantee the permanent abolition of pretty much everything associated with the welfare state and multiculturalism ? including welfare, affirmative action, quotas, set-asides, bilingual education, self-esteem training, various state-sponsored ethnic pride months, and all the academic "centers" for the study of Indian Marxist Lesbians who hate white folks but love Paris ? I would actually sign on with the Wall Street Journal's "open borders" position (those guys, God bless'em, want a constitutional amendment stating "there shall be open borders." I am not making this up).** Goldberg, feigning libertarianism. You can see though where he is going with. ÃÂ It is the old Frankfurt School theory of radical individualism and ethnic conflict as a way of abridging the danger posed by a socially and culturally cohesive society. ÃÂ The one thing he doesn't address is how this socially/culturally fragmented and really ethnic groups at each others throats society is goingto get together and implement this wonderful small government, constitutional, respect everybodies human rights equal society. Oh weight a minute I see. ÃÂ The chosenites will have to step in to intervene so all these goyim will quite fighting each other

**Quote**

Take America out of the equation for a second. Assuming you are a good classical liberal type, what kind of country would you design from scratch?** They've been tryingto take it out from the beginning.

**Quote**

My guess, if you think about it, would be one with a profoundly small government with a clearly stated, nigh-upon absolute, respect for contracts and property rights. It would be colorblind and would not at all interfere in your business or personal dealings so long as you respected the rights of others and your contractual obligations. You know what I'm getting at.** Yes. ÃÂ More libertarian mantra's to hide his agenda, which really uses libertarianism and recognizes it, but certainly won't play by the rules itself.

**Quote**

So, who would you want to populate this new land of?hmm let's call it NationalReviewville?no, that's not quite right. Hayek Town? Close but?I have it Liberty City. Okay so who would you invite to live in Liberty City? Would it be just whites? ÃÂ Well, no. Caucasians are just as susceptible to the asinine socialist gene as blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc. Invite a random pool of Swedes and Belgians and pretty soon Liberty City will head down the crapper to become New Santa Monica. Would you invite just Asians? Well, no, for pretty much the same reasons. Ditto blacks, Europeans, Eskimos, etc. etc. Now you might invite just Jews or Muslims or Christians if you were setting up Godburg. But that's an entirely different proposition. No, if you wanted the right kind of citizens for Liberty City, you would invite anybody and everybody who found the idea of living in total freedom with no governmental safety net very attractive. It would be like open tryouts for a football team ? or for these purposes a wrestling team (a sport with a less crypto-fascist organization). Anyone who could hack it made the team. Everyone else gets sent packing. No tears. ** Sounds like Bierut to me, like MacDonald says. ÃÂ Not surprising.

**Quote**

So in Liberty City, you can be black, Christian, Jewish, Hmong, fat, skinny, tall, short, Tibetan, or pretty much anything else you want to be except of course circus folk (we all know Carnies smell like cabbage). You could even be French. The one thing you couldn't do is expect to live off the government dole or get any special breaks from the government (if your family or Church wants to carry your freight, who cares?). Sink or swim, it's up to you and yours.** Like he mentioned, typical tough-#### attitude of the chosenites toward the goyim. ÃÂ The only thing is, who's going to guarantee these groups will respect these rules? ÃÂ Who's going to guarantee some of these ethnic groups aren't going to realize they can get more by banding together and making gov't work for them? Give you one guess

**Quote**

Well, this describes my ideological approach to immigration. It also explains how profoundly pernicious the racial group-rights, welfare-state stuff really from my perspective.** Pernicious that is for everyone but his own.

**Quote**

In a perfect world we would have open borders because in a perfect world America would be a lot more like Liberty City than it is today. Of course, we don't live in a perfect world where the ideas on the drawing board perfectly match the world outside our window. But the ideal remains the same. Anyway, that's my theory.** I get it. He's a national deconstructivist. Try this on for size. Caputo summarizes the moral-political agenda of deconstructivism, which in its opposition to western-traditional authority and cultural unity, parallels that of the Frankfurt School. "The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and tongueÃ¢â¬Â¦.The idea is to disarm the bombsÃ¢â¬Â¦..of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants, Ã¢â¬Â¦.all of whomÃ¢â¬Â¦are wholly other. ÃÂ Contrary to the claims of Derrida's more careless critics, the passion of deconstruction is deeply political, for deconstruction is a relentless, if sometimes indirect, discourse on democracy, on a democracy to come. ÃÂ Derrida's democracy is a radically pluralistic polity that resists the terror of an organic, ethnic, spiritual unity, of the natural bonds of the nation (natus, natio), which grinds to dust everything that is not a kin of the ruling kind and genus (Geschlect). He dreams of a nation without nationalist or nativistclosure, of a community without identity, of a non-identical community that cannot say I, or we, for, after all, the very idea of community is to fortify (munis, muneris) ourselves in common with one another. ÃÂ His work is driven by a sense of the consumate danger of an identitarian community, of the spirit of the "we" of "Christian Europe" or of a "Christian politics", lethal compounds that spell death of Arabs and Jews, for Africans and Asians, for anything other. ÃÂ The heaving and sighing of this Christian European spirit is a lethal air for Jews and Arabs, for all les Juifs, even if they go back to father Abraham, a way of gassing them according to both the letter and the spirit." ÃÂ

**Quote**

If you would like to receive the Goldberg File via e-mail, please send a blank e-mail to [EMAIL=GoldbergFile-subscribe@topica.com.]GoldbergFile-subscribe@topica.com.[/EMAIL] In order to ensure that you are not accidentally subscribed, you will receive a confirmation message. Once you reply, you will be added to the Goldberg File. To unsubscribe send a blank e-mail to [EMAIL=GoldbergFile-unsubscribe@topica.com.]GoldbergFile-unsubscribe@topica.com.[/EMAIL]** Any Takers?ÃÂ

--- ### Sertorius *2002-04-06 13:39* | [User Profile](/od/user/26) Frederick William, I got up this morning with some additional comments. You not only expressed what I had in mind, but did it better than I could have done. Faust subtitled his post

**Quote**

**Some of the worst trash I`ve ever read.**** I agree. However, your post is one of the best I`ve ever read. **Outstanding!**

You took little Jonah to the woodshed and then some. You ought to mail that rebuttal to him. --- ### Faust *2002-04-07 06:09* | [User Profile](/od/user/60) Frederick William I: Yes Sertorius is right; your post is Outstanding!!

--- ### Okiereddust *2002-04-07 06:46* | [User Profile](/od/user/29) Let me add my appeciation Frederick William to that of Faust and Sertorious. ÃÂ Of course when you reply to Jonah, you really need to use some cartoon so he'll understand. Does anyone know if images are enabled on this forum? --- ### Texas Dissident *2002-04-07 06:59* | [User Profile](/od/user/1)

**Quote** (Okiereddust @ April 07 2002,00:46)

Does anyone know if images are enabled on this forum?** Ooh! Ooh! (Arnold Horseshack imitation)

Yes, images are enabled, but please see a special note in the posting guidelines regarding same. --- ### Frederick William I *2002-04-07 07:04* | [User Profile](/od/user/58)

**Quote** (Sertorius @ April 06 2002,07:39)

I agree. However, your post is one of the best I`ve ever read. **Outstanding!**

** Thank you. ÃÂ Young Jonah does draw a lot of flack, but I think that is because of his loose, talkative style. ÃÂ He expresses a lot of the attitudes and says a lot of the things that are really pretty much the rule among neo-conservatives, but says them much less cautiously and more openly. Reading this article expresses pretty explicitly the thinking of neo-cons on immigration and America, even if its only a theory. Basically its a variant of multiculturalism, the theory of cultural competition and diversity as being economically and culturally good. This of course has been a standard doctrine among neo-cons and the New York intellectuals whence they originate in general. All sorts of applicable quotes from MacDonald come to mind.

**Quote**

You took little Jonah to the woodshed and then some. You ought to mail that rebuttal to him.** Maybe we ought to e-mail Jonah and invite him over to this list to defend his work. ÃÂ Neo-cons are not noted in general for their personable nature. I remember something about Jonah in this regard. ÃÂ We all remember the way Horowitz explodes when you even mention Justin Raimondo. Maybe he might have some interesting things to say here though. His e-mail address is. jonahemail@aol.com BTW Faust thanks for posting this article. ÃÂ It is fairly old though and I was just wondering if you ever remember a Sam Francis thread on this article. ÃÂ There were so many negative threads on Jonah's articles over there it got sort of hard to keep track. Texas Dissident, what do you think of e-mailing Jonah? ÃÂ He'd probably have some negative things to say about this forum

of course, but what the heck, why not let him have his two cents? I noticed along these lines that Townhall doesn't have its own forum any more. ÃÂ Maybe he needs some place where someone can whip his little neo-con rear end, like Lucianne must have failed to have done properly

--- ### solutrian *2002-04-07 17:25* | [User Profile](/od/user/45) Jonah Goldberg called Paul Gottfried a "crank" when asked by Lamb who he was after a viewer called in and mentioned his name. (Brian Lamb did not know who he was, being an ignoramus in politics as well as writing.) Those who have met DR. Gottfried know him to be a gentleman, unlike Jonah Goldturd, and of an intellect far above that of Goldturd's. J. G. is really something of a punk, and, worse, has a third rate mind. Dr. Gottfried should have an opportunity to respond on Lamb's poor excuse of a public affairs program. But it is unlikely he will be able to do so. The media is run like a private club. --- ### van helsing *2002-04-07 17:54* | [User Profile](/od/user/48) Yup Jonah sure writes in that 'stream of consciousness' style, rambling from pseudo point to pseudo point. Maybe he thinks it makes him appear downhome or homespun. Just not credible; he is from the 'baffle them with b*llsh*t" club. His only credo is that he is trying to 'stay on top'. It has been said that gays run hollywood, sort of like a 'hom(o)intern'. Well the media is run by a 'hymantern'. btw, gottfried's books lists amazon are pretty good. http://www.amazon.com/exec....0172136 --- ### Sertorius *2002-04-08 00:00* | [User Profile](/od/user/26) AntiYuppie, In your post above you pulled a quote from Goldberg`s article about the Left`s failure to understand corporations. I think that he is trying to hijack a conservative issue with this. I noted above that certain corporations such as Enron lobbied in favor of the Kyoto Treaty because they saw a way to enrich themselves by trading energy credits. It works the same way with onerous regulations. Big business can absorbe the cost of complying better than a small business can so therefore it is in their interest to have alot of regulations to stifle competition. I consider this another way to ultimately gain a monopoly. There are better examples than I have above, but I can`t think of them off the top of my head at this moment. Perhaps some of the members here can provide one. Goldberg is a creature of the neo-con establishment and part of his loyalty is owned by the Multinationals that help fund *National Review*. Bottom line is that he is like the character "Eddie Haskell" from *Leave it to Beaver* fame. He acts like he cares about small business, but the truth be known he couldn`t care less, just as long as he and his buddies can fool them awhile longer. That line has about as much meaning as Limbaugh to say once in a blue moon that he cares about illegal immigration. What you have written about Neo-cons throwing terms around is quite true. When I hear them talk about "liberals" and "socialism," I know that they are trying to obfuscate the issue by putting up a facade. It`s the corporatism/NWO nonsense behind the facade that folks should be concern with. As you noted they only use these terms to get a kneejerk reaction from the "freeper" and "dittohead" types to keep them from figuring out the truth. Personally, I think that this demostrates that the "right" has it share of fools and idiots too. Your analysis is on target. --- ### Sertorius *2002-04-08 00:22* | [User Profile](/od/user/26) [quote=Faust,April 04 2002,22:49]

**Quote**

** I think immigrants fight off socialism. **** Of all the statements made in this article, this without a doubt is the most asinine of them all. If this were true them the massive immigration between the late 1800s and the early 1900s should resulted in more freedom by Goldberg logic. Instead we got the New Deal. I think the reason for that was because we weren`t careful in who we let in, even though by today`s standards that time was a godsend. The biggest problem with the immigration of that period was that we allowed too many of Goldberg`s fellow tribesmen in, (maybe Goldberg`s family?) like Trotsky and Zinoviev, though fortunately *they did leave eventually.* Unfortunately, too many of their like minded friends didn`t and help spread their noxious political beliefs with the rest of the Socialists who were already here. These activities eventually got alot of them deported (the "Red Scare") and was one of the reasons why the 1924 Immigration Act was passed. It is partially because of people like this that we have the problems we have today. --- ### Frederick William I *2002-04-08 09:38* | [User Profile](/od/user/58)

**Quote** (solutrian @ April 07 2002,12:25)

Jonah Goldberg called Paul Gottfried a "crank" when asked by Lamb who he was after a viewer called in and mentioned his name. (Brian Lamb did not know who he was, being an ignoramus in politics as well as writing.) ..... Dr. Gottfried should have an opportunity to respond on Lamb's poor excuse of a public affairs program. But it is unlikely he will be able to do so. The media is run like a private club.** We have a thread that contains this interchange. ÃÂ You all need the latest copy of real player though to hear it. http://www.originaldissent.com/cgi-bin....8;t=673 --- ### Frederick William I *2002-04-08 10:26* | [User Profile](/od/user/58)

**Quote** (AntiYuppie @ April 07 2002,17:59)

Frederick William I: Overall, you did an excellent job dissecting Goldberg's piece. I do wonder, however, to what extent Goldberg's advocacy of open borders as a "cure" for "socialism" is a result of calculating connivance and what part of it is simply due to his pig ignorance. If it were somebody more clever I'd say the former, but in Goldberg's case I really believe that he's just mouthing platitudes without understanding the issues involved. ÃÂ As you note, this part of his rant is completely devoid of logic or meaning. I still don't know what it's supposed to mean: ** I think Van Helsing's comment

**Quote**

Yup Jonah sure writes in that 'stream of consciousness' style, rambling from pseudo point to pseudo point. Maybe he thinks it makes him appear downhome or homespun. Just not credible; he is from the 'baffle them with b*llsh*t" club. His only credo is that he is trying to 'stay on top'.** Hits a pretty substantial part of the nail on the head with regard to Jonah's opaque style in a conceptual sense. ÃÂ Jonah appears to me to be trying, as I'd suspect with this superficially open "stream of consciousness" malarky, to be trying to hide at the root his own strong agenda. ÃÂ The way he does really is those typical mixture of deviousness (deception) and fuzziness in his own head (self-deception). However the ÃÂ very strong postmodernist influence on his agenda is apparent to all. In any sense it is both impossible to make sense of Jonah's many arguments, and unnecessary, because he really doesn't throw them out in a consistent way that advances real points. ÃÂ He just seems to throw points up at random like flak, to cover the real train and tendency of his thought. ÃÂ His shallow knowledge of Europe thus typically doesn't indicate any real interest in understanding Europe or the developments there. ÃÂ Its just a smokescreen for his own fixed pursuit of his own *bete's noire* (borrowing his own phrase) "old-path" conservatives who insist on taking seriously old paleo virtues and attitudes that he wishes to dispense with. It really is a step down in journalism. ÃÂ NR for a long time maintained its influence at least in part because of its editorial resistance to this type of jounalistic writing, and insistence on intellectual substance. ÃÂ Goldberg's style is much more like his friends over at Time and Newsweek, flip and superficial.

**Quote**

As for Goldberg's claim that most European nations (and developed Eastasian nations) are more "socialist" than the United States, he has that part right. And he's also correct to note that more ethnically homogeneous societies are more apt to tolerate welfare/social services than heterogeneous ones. A German is far more likely to support a safety net for a fellow German than for a Turk, etc. This is simply due to the fact that one doesn't feel much social duty or sense of solidarity with people who are completely different from oneself. It isn't just welfare and the social safety net that lacks support in a heterogeneous society, but any sense of duty to one's fellow citizens. So for the neos and libertarians, combatting "welfare" and "socialism" by forcing ethnic heterogeneity down the throats of sovereign nations is just the tip of the ideological iceberg. The welfare isn't what bothers them, that's just a symptom of the wider tendency of cultural unity and solidarity in a nation. With their open borderism they are trying to break down the bonds of ethnicity that make any kind of solidarity and altruism possible, and conversely, make possible the sort of exclusionary mindset that would threaten the elite status of alien interlopers with names like "Goldberg" and "Kristol." But by packaging their attack on the ethno-state as a fight against "socialism," the neos hope to win the political sympathies of knee-jerk conservatives who are trained to salivate at the sound of the word "socialism" and go along with anyone or anything (the latter being applicable here) who claims to be fighting it.** I think you're pretty much hitting the nail on the head that this new-found neo concern with socialism in a European context is pretty much of a red herring. ÃÂ It seems superficially true to an American not familiar with Europe that such might be true. ÃÂ Actually it is very simple analysis of a quite complex situation. ÃÂ One could make a quite compelling argument that the European countries in which socialism advanced rapidly in the mid 1800's were culturally quite a bit more diverse and non-western influenced than the US. ÃÂ Correspondingly the rapid growth of socialism at the turn of the century in America of course was very much a ethnic phenomena, while the sudden check and momentary reversal of socialism at the start of WWI an assertion of the newly developed national unity these nations had acquired by virtue of their gradual amalgamation over time. Goldberg in any sense knows that he is not really putting forth arguments that he really has studied himself nor understands at some level. Throwing forth this type of writing as good reflective journalism is indicative of a big decline in the standards of National Review. ÃÂ It is is combination of his willingness just to "throw forth" arguments that sound good to the superficial but which he knows lack substance (deception) with the juvenile attitude that his slumming laziness and inaccuracy will still produce and aid discourse and reflection of real substance (self-deception). That's my take on boy Jonah. ÃÂ It is interesting how one idiot can become the fous of such serious commentary, which Jonah himself like to just "Ah Shucks" about. But the fact of the matter is this juvenile tripe, which is below the level found in quite a few student newspapers, is the product of the editor of National Review Online. I think there's a proverb about what happens to nations when youths rule and folly reigns. ÃÂ You may laugh, but it is sad to compare the NR today with that of 30 or even 15 years ago. --- ### mwdallas *2002-04-08 20:14* | [User Profile](/od/user/81)

**Quote**

I do wonder, however, to what extent Goldberg's advocacy of open borders as a "cure" for "socialism" is a result of calculating connivance and what part of it is simply due to his pig ignorance. ** I suspect that like so many of his ilk Goldberg seldom thinks independently; the Gestalt of his milieu simply passes into him by osmosis. Any ideas who creates that milieu?

There is no need for Goldberg to understand why he feels as he does (and I do mean "feels"); he need only understand that he is adhering to the party line. Any awareness that he is advocating an ethnic agenda through deceptive means would be potentially counterproductive, as the best deceivers are self-deceivers. (See Chs. 6 & 7 of Separation and Its Discontents.) --- ### van helsing *2002-04-09 01:05* | [User Profile](/od/user/48) Pope Jonah is trying to make even more explicit the typical neocon smear of Buchanan as a nazi by tying him to, or trying to tie him to Spengler. Ya know, all dem white nationalists are evil, the next thing they'll say the holocaust was justified... Jonah uses the 'stream of consciousness' approach not really because of a conscious design, but moreso as AY has alluded, it is the only way he can write. He isnt as learned on these topics as half the people who post here. I bet he gets his final marching orders from 'Neocon Command' (or is that Neocom?) near the end of the day and then has to hurriedly compose some smear to try and intimidate his putrative opposition and placate his hungry bosses. Either that or he thinks his detractors are so stooooooooopid he can just say anything and get away with it. Maybe there is just a (time) limit to the ability to baffle people with, as fidel castro would put it, 'boolsheet'. --- ### MikeKr1 *2002-04-20 15:42* | [User Profile](/od/user/10)

**Quote** (amundsen @ April 05 2002,01:31)

What nonsense. ÃÂ The US is the largest socialist/fascist state in the world. ÃÂ Lets remember this much, at least the average worker bee in Europe can take a months vacation each year and really relax. ÃÂ Moreover, they dont have to work nights, weekends, holidays, or holy days as so many poor Americans are forced to for crummy wages. ÃÂ The regulations in America may be less then in Europe, but we were always playing catchup to them. ÃÂ We'll be there soon enough.** Ã¢â¬ÅThe Coming US FascismÃ¢â¬Â In 1944 the Old Right journalist John T. Flynn (one of the earliest Bill Buckley NR Ã¢â¬ÅpurgeÃ¢â¬Â victims in 11 years later) wrote: "The test of fascism is not oneÃ¢â¬â¢s rage against the Italian and German warlords. The test is Ã¢â¬â how many of the essential principles of fascism do you accept and to what extent are you prepared to apply those fascist ideas to American social and economic life? When you can put your finger on the men or the groups that urge for America the debt-supported state, the autarchial corporative state, the state bent on the socialization of investment and the bureaucratic government of industry and society, the establishment of the institution of militarism as the great glamorous public-works project of the nation and the institution of imperialism under which it proposes to regulate and rule the world and, along with this, proposes to alter the forms of our government to approach as closely as ÃÂ possible the unrestrained, absolute government Ã¢â¬â then you will know you have located the authentic fascist. But let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that we are dealing by this means with the problem of fascism. Fascism will come at the hands of perfectly authentic Americans, as violently against Hitler and Mussolini as the next one, but who are convinced that the present economic system is washed up and that the present political system in America has outlived its usefulness and who wish to commit this country to the rule of the bureaucratic state; interfering in the affairs of the states and cities; taking part in the management of industry and finance and agriculture; assuming the role of great national banker and investor, borrowing millions every year and spending them on all sorts of projects through which such a government can paralyze opposition and command public support; marshaling great armies and navies at crushing costs to support the industry of war and preparation for war which will become our greatest industry; and adding to all this the most romantic adventures in global planning, regeneration, and domination all to be done under the authority of a powerfully centralized government in which the executive will hold in effect all the powers with ÃÂ Congress reduced to the role of a debating society. There is your fascist. And the sooner America realizes this dreadful fact the sooner it will arm itself to make an end of American fascism masquerading under the guise of the champion of democracy. It should be equally clear that all this is in no sense communism.... [A] reason for the confusion is the character of the men who are authentic and honest New Dealers but who were not communists.... They began to flirt with the alluring pastime of reconstructing the capitalist system. They became the architects of a new capitalist system. And in the process of this new career they began to fashion doctrines that turned out to be the principles of fascism. Of course they do not call them fascism, although some of them frankly see the resemblance. But they are not disturbed, because they know that they will never burn books, they will never hound the Jews or the Negroes, they will never resort to assassination and suppression. What will turn up in their hands will be a very genteel and dainty and pleasant form of fascism which cannot be called fascism at all because it will be so virtuous and polite." (Ã¢â¬ÅAs We Go MarchingÃ¢â¬Â [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1944], pp. 252-255.) In 1969, at the height of the so-called Sixties, a New Right essayist Ã¢â¬â alarmed, apparently, that Jane Fonda and friends still enjoyed freedom of speech and that college administrators were too spineless to have the police clear student radicals out of their offices Ã¢â¬â called for "some variety of expediential fascism": "The very nature of the situation creates competing codes and doctrines extreme in content and alien to the balancing compromises of liberal polity. The stringent demands of such a rudimentary struggle of power and ideas invites political approaches that are totalitarian in nature: not quite in the original fascist sense that puts all aspects of life under the aegis of political authority, at least in the general sense that political theory can no longer restrict itself to general conditions and procedural rules, but must offer a comprehensive, authoritative resolution of a number of specific political and social questions." (Donald Atwell Zoll, "Shall We Let America Die?," National Review, December 16, 1969, pp. 12-62-1263.) The phrase emphasized above ("political theory can no longer restrict itself to general conditions and procedural rules") abolishes constitutions and expresses the long-standing wish of some "conservatives" for a Ã¢â¬ÅGovernment of National Emergency.Ã¢â¬Â Wilson, FDR and Truman taught them well. National Review lives in a mental state of siege. There may be no antidote for it, but the following quotations may be of some use: "Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." ~ James Madison, 1798 "Is it not just possible that we may become corrupted at home by the reaction of arbitrary political maxims in the East upon our domestic politics, just as Greece and Rome were demoralised by their contact with Asia?" ~ Richard Cobden, 1850 "Wartime brings the ideal of the State out into very clear relief, and reveals attitudes and tendencies that were hidden. In times of peace the sense of the State flags in a republic that is not militarized. For war is essentially the health of the State." ~ Randolph Bourne, 1919 I am one of the few goyim who have ever actually tackled the Talmud. I suppose you now expect me to add that it is a profound and noble work, worthy of hard study by all other goyim Unhappily, my report must differ from this expectation. It seems to me, save for a few bright spots, to be quite indistinguishable from rubbish. If, at its highest, it is genuinely worth reading, then at its lowest it is on all fours with the Koran, "Science and Health" and the Book of Mormon. ~H.L. Mencken --- ### amundsen *2002-04-20 22:06* | [User Profile](/od/user/5)

**Quote**

But they are not disturbed, because they know that they will never burn books, they will never hound the Jews or the Negroes, they will never resort to assassination and suppression.** Our government is the most deceptive ever known. It must be to have worked so well, for so long. It is surely the most subtle, and slow paced of which I can think. Without its slow, deliberate moves to increase its power we might have caught notice of the change. Then again maybe it isnt our government but rather us. Maybe we are particularly docile and cowardly. Maybe those two wars for independance were aberations. What occurs to me is that in order for those who believe that our all powerful government is and will always be different, that is fair, when all others like it have not, must necessarily be racists. They must believe that we as a people are somehow better then others; that the same forms managed by Americans will work when before they failed. I actually want to agree that we are better, although I find it harder to do each day, but when I assert such things I am the one called a racist. The fatal flaw in the thinking of those who believe that we can better run the government because of our people is to not realize that it is because of the lack of government that we have the better people in the first place. In other words the success will have to be short lived as by having powerful states we destroy the freedom within which good men are made and allowed to thrive. --- ### Faust *2002-04-21 01:31* | [User Profile](/od/user/60) How Stupid is Pope Jonah???? "Have you ever noticed that those countries which are ethnically more homogeneous than the United States ? i.e. virtually all of them ? are more socialist than America? A couple years ago I went to Switzerland on a fascinating (and phat) junket.'" Switzerland is "ethnically homogeneous"??? Does Jonah have half a brain??? Switzerland has Four Official Language!!! It's people are a mix of Germans, Latins, and Celts. --- ### il ragno *2002-04-24 21:11* | [User Profile](/od/user/85) Sorry to get in on this so late - I've been offline a while - but my very favoritest stupidity in his 'essay' is:

**Quote**

No, if you wanted the right kind of citizens for Liberty City, you would invite anybody and everybody who found the idea of living in total freedom with no governmental safety net very attractive.** That's **so** idiotic for so **many** reasons it beggars the imagination. I can hardly believe this is what NATIONAL REVIEW now spews out. If Abbie Hoffman were alive, he'd be a subscriber (Abbie, of course, would've become a 'second-thoughts' Republican several years back.) --- ### Feric Jaggar *2002-04-26 15:06* | [User Profile](/od/user/84)

**Quote** (Faust @ April 20 2002,20:31)

How Stupid is Pope Jonah?

"Have you ever noticed that those countries which are ethnically more homogeneous than the United States ? i.e. virtually all of them ? are more socialist than America? '"** No no no Jonah is right. We should all be like the peaceful and prosperous multi-ethnic nations of Israel, Tibet, Brazil and South Africa! Only they can teach us what true freedom is all about. --- ### Leveller *2002-04-26 19:09* | [User Profile](/od/user/61) As said above, this article is so *transparently* dumb, its hard to know what to say! I remember reading it when originally published and thinking the same. Cut out the waffle and wisecracks, and you're left with: "Lets destroy our high trust society. This will keep taxes down." This wouldn't be desirable even if it worked! --- ### oldrightlibertarian *2002-04-30 03:02* | [User Profile](/od/user/117) The basic fallacy behind Goldberg's view is that somehow by socialism becoming even more unworkable than it presently is, it will end. The managerial class will never suddenly say "oh, well it turns out this isn't working too well, so we'll stop." Peter Brimelow made the basic point that with a small number of designated victims we can substain our current system, but if not it will go to hell. Only a nihilist would wish for the tax consumers to increase to a ridiculous level and destroy our prosperty and culture just because it will make things worse. Obviously I would love to get rid of racial set asides, the welfare state, and government education, but for the time being our society is able to sort of manage. The worst is not the better. As Murray Rothbard pointed out, the worst people realize they are, the better, but the worst it gets the crappier the compromise they're willing to accept. All this aside, despite Goldberg's theoritical conclusion, he ignores the basic truth that the '65 immigration act was just another aspect of Great Society next to his other favorite programs like HUD, The Civil Rights Act, and MWDC. --- ### Faust *2003-06-03 21:50* | [User Profile](/od/user/60) This is worth reading one more time. --- ### Kurt *2003-06-04 05:19* | [User Profile](/od/user/387) Goldberg sounds positively [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=7948]libertarian[/url] in this piece (o' crap). :dung: ---