The New Terrapin Gazette
…man’s original sin was precisely what the Bible says it was: eating from the tree of knowledge; that is, in modern parlance, invention of symbolic universes. This made man both better and worse than other species with their inbuilt drives and controls. This opened up his tremendous history from cave shelters to skyscrapers, from fetishism to Freudianism, from paleolithic painting to pop art.
A Nation In Extremis: Islamist Colonialism And Collectivist Supremacy
This is a story of great evil, almost unspeakable horror, the lust for power and control, appalling jurisprudential error, and the failure or simple absence of morality. The following summary is abstracted, with quotes, from a longer account published here.
In July of 2011 a man murdered seventy-seven people because he objected to “multiculturalist” policies that favored Muslim immigration to Norway. He made a number of outrageous statements, leading the authorities to doubt his sanity and therefore his culpability. In pre-trial proceedings, he insisted that his actions were sane because they agreed with critics of Muslim immigration. Initially, mental health specialists proclaimed him a paranoid schizophrenic, which the accused strongly denied. “…many of the country’s citizens — particularly those members of the predominantly left-wing cultural, political, and academic elite — (found) themselves in agreement with the mass-murdering, right-wing fanatic on the question of his mental state.” As a result, a second examination was carried out, and “…produced a more politically palatable diagnosis, finding (the accused) “not psychotic at the time of the actions of terrorism and he is not psychotic now.”” The accused was “…assured that his ideology had been legitimized by the Norwegian state as, at the the very least, not the product of an insane mind.” From this point on, the court was tasked with determining the truth, accuracy and validity of the accused’s politics.
In proclaiming his political goals before killing anybody, the defendant had produced a long, mostly plagiarized document presenting various anti-Islam and anti-immigration statements. At this point, everything lurches sickeningly into the abyss.
If (the defendant) believed he was acting rationally, the key determinant of sanity, then his stated reasons for murdering seventy-seven people must be part of the judicial process determining his guilt. … Suddenly, every writer (he) cited favorably in his essay could be considered complicit in his criminal act. Treating (the defendant) as sane allows those on the left, not just in Norway but around the world, to associate (the accused) with all critics of Islam. (Emphasis added.)
Thus, the attempt to tar anyone who expresses even the slightest apprehension about the cultural and political mores of Muslim immigrants would take a particularly sick turn with the start of (the accused’s) trial.
There are two points to be emphasized here, and then you are enjoined to repair to the text on the internet for more information on the horror.
First, note that the author of the article states that according to Norwegian law, anyone who believes he is acting rationally is sane (read it again — it’s in italics above). This newsletter finds it virtually impossible to believe that any legal code in the West, no matter how frostbitten and inbred, incorporates such a principle.
Second, the left’s control of the medical profession, the judicial process, the most influential segments of the polity and the mindset of the vast majority of Norwegians seems to be virtually total. The ideologues are clearly in power, and they are able to negate medical diagnoses and alter the course of a very serious trial for political reasons — namely, in order to stigmatize, through libel and slander, all who believe the colonialist goals of totalitarian Islam are exactly what the Koran and hadith proclaim them to be.
One wonders what the worst single aspect of this mind-shattering catastrophe is. The seventy-seven victims? The loss of rationality and professional integrity suffered by the jurisprudential system? The reduction of common sense to fascist cant and the emergence of abject intellectual-political serfdom in service to an overclass of censorious ethical cretins?
This newsletter views the catastrophe as beginning with one sociopath and cascading into a collapse of ethical and rational governance. Clearly, Norway is incapable of administering justice, a failing that is caused by the ruling elite’s authoritarian ideological zealotry. Intolerance for common sense characterizes the literal fanatics who control every institution of the national culture. One can summarize the crippling lunacy as political correctness run amok. At whatever cost, the extremists running the prostrate nation intend to make sure their hegemony is not threatened by clear thinking, equity, and simple respect for humanity. In Norway, one finds a nearly perfect example of fascism whose very existence is denied by all who style themselves “progressives”. This, the death of Liberty, is the future that remains possible for all nations where the political left essays the assumption of power and control.
By all means do what you can to clarify the situation — read the original report, and follow the case by using a good search engine. Then you will find this commentary relevant to the wider problem.
Proceed, Pilgrims. The staff of this newsletter has a bellyful, and will remain behind, dismayed and despairing.
The Collectivist Fallacy
A Book Review
Preface: though the book reviewed here appeared in 2007, it was ignored by this newsletter. Later, loyal reader JY advised the NTG staff that a review would be in order. What follows is belated, but perhaps it will be of value to you as you compose your reading list for the coming holidays.
The cover pronounces Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism a “No. 1 New York Times Bestseller”, which may even be true. Never mind. What matters is that this book (ISBN 978-0-141-03950-3) is a revelatory historical account the ruling Bicoastal Elite has scornfully dismissed. Both facts require comment.
Goldberg acknowledges the difficulty of defining fascism, and notes the obvious: collectivist (Marxist, socialist, “progressive”) factions assume that fascism is a characteristic only of the political “right”, which includes Nazism and The Tea Party — but does not include Lenin’s or Stalin’s rule of the Soviet Union and Castro’s regime in Cuba. A good deal of the book is therefore devoted to providing a rational, consistent and useful understanding of the meaning of the word.
That process begins with Mussolini (who was the first ruling “fascist” to use the name, but not the first fascist) and extends to such topics as the importance of eugenics in the history of Nazism — and notes that Hitler’s rationale for engineering the genetics of Europe has links to the United States of America. No one should be shocked by that fact, for the USA has been and is today home to all manner of crackpots. When, however, Goldberg begins his examination of the guiding themes of US governance that appeared in the late nineteenth century, he commits blatant political incorrectness. He points out that one of the seminal events in the history of fascism was the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, whose authoritarian impulses and passion for modeling governance after warfare make him the worst president in the nation’s history.
This charge is not news to libertarian students of history, of course, but to most folks, it goes against the hero-worship accorded many former presidents. The educational system of the USA is deficient in that it fails to regard the past in the light of multiple interpretations of the ethics of governance. Unless one first asks what a constitutionally restrained national government should do, one cannot provide a complete discussion of the worth of men like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Hoover, and so on. Ignorance is your enemy, and books like Goldberg’s are your allies.
To return to Wilson: some of Goldberg’s readers may be shocked by the zealotry of the president’s campaign to organize and control the electorate, the economy, and the national will. Indeed, the weed of 20th century US fascism was nurtured (if not planted) by the twenty-eighth president, whose self-conception as the manifestation of the national ethos made him a genuinely Hitlerian figure. There is hardly a penny’s worth of difference between the two men’s vision of what a leader must be, and of the power he must wield. For Fuehrerprinzip, one might substitute “Wilsonian authority”.
In fact Wilson’s legacy prepared the way for the wildly enthusiastic reception Mussolini’s regime received in the USA (yes, the Italian dictator was for quite a few years tremendously popular across the US political spectrum). Goldberg does not mention that Wilson’s misrule made the lunatic extremism of all political factions more fashionable and tolerable, but the fundamental assumptions Wilson made actually created an ambience favorable to the national popularity of the Ku Klux Klan after WW I. After Wilson, people tended to think as fascists think, behave as fascists behave, and set aside decency in order to identify enemies of the now-unified state/people. Wilson, not FDR, was the father of US statism, authoritarianism, and unconstitutional federal expansion (you will recall that he hobbled the nation with the Federal Reserve). Roosevelt was sloppy, hesitant, muddled, gullible and inconstant by comparison. Of course both men were hugely egotistical. (Yet again this newsletter recommends The Kings Depart, ISBN 978-0-671-20117-3.)
Some of the most disturbing aspects of Goldberg’s account have to do with the links between US eugenics and Nazi mass murder. Eugenics is murder, too, and the fact that it was practiced at all in the USA, or endorsed as enthusiastically as it was, is a stain on the national history that remains largely and shamefully ignored. Unfortunately a recent revelation (linked to in Number 252 of this newsletter) indicates the ease with which a pregnant woman can often — not always — obtain an abortion simply because she says she wants a boy, not a girl, so her unborn girl must be killed. That horror reminds one of the disastrous Chinese policy that has dangerously unbalanced that nation’s demographics, literally predisposing the nation to war. These are all aspects and consequences of fascist thinking, fascist immorality, and fascist assumptions that are no longer seen as what they are. In a sense, many people reading Goldberg’s seminal book may find themselves horrified to admit that “We are all fascists now”. In fact, that’s why political correctness was created and still exists: it is pure fascism.
Of course the Bicoastal Elite has and will continue to reject Liberal Fascism as pure fascist fantasy. It is not a book that tries to alter anyone’s political beliefs, however; it is a history that provides facts that are almost always glossed over by the standard texts and sources. Goldberg asks you to pause, take a good look, and make up your mind about what actually happened. As history, his detailed effort richly deserves to be read. Do obtain a copy and note at once that the notes to the chapters include a lot of material that should have been put in the chapters. Reading everything carefully will give you a much better idea of what fascism is, why it is bad, and how the word has been dishonestly employed by collectivists. There really is such a thing as liberal fascism, and it’s highly toxic.
Well. One can sum things up by saying that as revelation, Liberal Fascism is about as politically incorrect as a book can be — for it is historically accurate and rationally argued. The second part of this review deals, therefore, with the backhanded dismissal of Goldberg’s history of ethical/political misadventure.
Who, exactly, might be likely to make the effort to dissuade folks from reading Liberal Fascism? Not politicians, for they don’t care much about history and can’t be bothered to complain about works that clarify the past (and they often depend on ghost writers — remember Profiles in Courage and It Takes A Village?). Ordinary citizens can be expected to object to Goldberg’s revelations, but those critics can’t get published except in weblogs or newsletters like this one. Now because Goldberg makes some very serious assertions, the attempt to sink his book would have to come from a biased medium such as the New York Times. Maureen Dowd would be hard put to read the book and say much about it because it’s a bit too academic, so…the sabotage should come from an academic. Precisely: here it is.
There are several major criticisms of Goldberg’s book in Oshinsky’s review, and commentary on most of them will be brief. Long responses are not required, for most of the professor’s objections are simply counter-factual.
1. The review is titled, “Heil Woodrow!” The implication is that comparing Wilson to Hitler is Marx-Brothers/Keystone Kops absurdity and cannot be justified by any historical evidence. Read Goldberg’s book, and you will see why Oshinsky had to resort to pre-teen mockery; in fact Wilson was a dictatorial elitist whose contempt for the masses was monumental, and Liberal Fascism makes that clear. Woody really was the American Hitler.
2. Oshinsky claims that “…for Goldberg, fascism is strictly a Democratic disease.” That is not true. Read the book carefully, and you will see that Oshinsky is either a biased liar or a delusional reader.
3. “Goldberg…can’t get a handle on Roosevelt’s admittedly elusive personality.” In fact, Goldberg points out that FDR was vague, inconsistent, and easily distracted at times, resulting in the immense difficulty one has in summing up his New Deal in a sentence. Even hardcore New Dealers running the bureaucracy found it difficult to say what the New Deal was. Oshinsky: “One is left to ponder how the outlines of America’s modern welfare state emerged from such a lazy, superficial mind.” Of course. As Goldberg makes clear, there was no such linear emergence. The reviewer’s implications are off target.
4. “…it’s absurd to view the C.C.C. as the American version of Hitler Youth, and the N.R.A. — heavy on slogans, light on coercion — was so ineffective that Roosevelt heaved a sigh of relief when it was declared unconstitutional in 1935.” Again, off target. The CCC had many parallels to the HJ, and was unprecedented in US politics; it exemplified the adoption of the war model as a theme of peacetime politics and the mobilization of the civilian population behind a collective effort directed by zealots (which is pure fascism, as Goldberg will help you to understand). The key: the CCC was indeed “the American version”, not a clone. And the NRA was a bully, as you will see from Goldberg’s history of the authoritarian bureau. That it failed does not mean it was precedented, principled, or practical (a fact Oshinsky utterly ignores); it was none of those things, while at its core and in its tactics, it was blatantly fascistic.
5. Oshinsky goes wildly off the rails in this embarrassing objection:
What Goldberg may not know — or is afraid to tell us — is that the 1920s were anything but sane. This was the decade, after all, that contained the largest state-sponsored social experiment in the nation’s history — Prohibition — and it lasted through three Republican administrations before Franklin Roosevelt ended it in 1933. The 1920s also saw the explosive spread of the Ku Klux Klan in the Republican Midwest, a virtual halt to legal immigration under the repressive National Origins Act and an angry grass-roots backlash against the teaching of evolution in public schools.
That’s right-wing fascism. Goldberg’s book is Liberal Fascism. If you have a book on nuclear physics, how much information does it provide on the breeding of dogs?
6. Oshinsky sums up Goldberg’s book thus:
The final chapters of Liberal Fascism are a rant, often deliciously amusing, against America’s numerous liberal-fascist elites. In unexciting times, when there are no calamities to be addressed, liberals push a more robust social agenda, Goldberg claims, using the state and the friendly news media to tar opponents of, say, affirmative action or same-sex marriage as bigots, fanatics and fools. The task facing conservatives, he adds, is to hold liberals accountable for these jackboot tactics. “For at some point,” Goldberg writes, “it is necessary to throw down the gauntlet, to draw a line in the sand, to set a boundary, to cry at long last, ‘Enough is enough.'”
These are familiar words, eerily reminiscent of the ‘adrenaline-soaked’ cliches of John F. Kennedy as he railed against Soviet expansion around the globe. But I dare not call them fascist. That would be unfair.
Oshinsky lets “the final chapters” of a book that contains ten chapters go by without bothering to discuss their merits; they — however many Oshinsky is thinking of — are, according to Oshinsky’s lights, nothing more than “a rant”. (That implies that they are irrational, absurd, not at all factual, and can be utterly ignored, does it not?) Well, all right; read them, and you will be informed. About what? About eugenics, a terrifying subject that has seldom been explored; about racism; about economics (with special emphasis on the parallels between Nazi and US policy) and how governmental control discriminates against economic growth to the advantage of connected industrialists and donors; Hillary Clinton’s political orientation and policies; and about the recent history of trendy fascism in US culture, politics and everyday life. To the ruling elite, none of that is worth even a nod, of course — it’s all just “a rant”. That this quintessentially important information can be swept aside as nothing more than mindless babble says a great deal about Oshinsky and those who agree with his censorious contempt for some of the facts of history.
Prediction: Oshinsky would probably tell you to skip reading Tom Wolfe’s Tiny Mummies and Those Radical Chic Evenings (Google them, Pilgrims). For him, those are almost surely “rants” you don’t need to know anything about.
“Wingnuts” hammer Obama & Co. in a rehash of the last debate. Video. Recommended because it’s not just for “wingnuts” only — a lot of Obamites would benefit from knowing where the brickbats will be coming from. By the way, check out the bio of one of the “wingnuts” on the show.
Are there goalposts in climatology? Evidently, and this is what moving them looks like. Hmpf. This newsletter prefers to think of it as a tacit acknowledgment that the model is profoundly flawed.
The natural reaction of business to Obamacare.
Some idiot has managed to invent something that is touted as “…a saviour for the world’s energy crisis.” Well, that’s astoundingly stupid! Why would anybody want to save the world’s energy crisis? Abolish it, yes; end it, certainly. But save it? Heck, no! In any event, the concept looks like a hoax. Don’t invest. — Later: a quick look reveals that a step in the process involves electrolysis to derive hydrogen gas from water. In technical terminology, which may be above the heads of most NTG readers who did not get an advanced degree in physics from a good university, this is called “bullshit”. That’s because electrolysis is amazingly inefficient: it uses a lot more energy than the hydrogen it produces can possibly return, so even combining small quantities of that hydrogen with other chemicals to make a fuel will be impractical. If that’s incorrect, then proof of the concept will be forthcoming, but you can bet this process will not be heard of again.
A peek into the tipi. Ugh.
An interesting take on the Libyan mess.
Obama has been a combatant in the culture war, although he has usually remained in the barracks rather than in the trenches. Still, this has to hurt.
In a just and decent world, this malarkey would cost Obama the election. In the real world, almost nobody will know it happened. Thank the press for that. And remember: dead people don’t respond to pollsters…they just vote.
Here’s another example of news that isn’t: a crucial Obama lie that will play virtually no role in the election. How can a representative democracy survive overwhelmingly bigoted journalism? Recall these snippets of wisdom: “A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself.” (Pulitzer.) “There are laws to protect the freedom of the press’s speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press.” (Clemens.)
This is the sort of news the public seldom if ever sees: it’s complex, hardly exciting, of interest to a minority of people — and gives the federal government no cause to worry about being criticized for doing the wrong thing. Yet if you read the report at the link, you will have to admit that the current administration is guilty of some indefensible enforcement policies. In fact, a lot of what is reported here makes Washington DC look like a repressive dictatorship. Yes, this newsletter has been insisting for many months that Holder has to go, but as long as he can hide in plain sight, which means without the press howling for his scalp, these affronts to constitutional governance will continue. Ultimately, Keeping The Powers That Be Honest is a job that can be done only by the press. With Obama in power, that job has been largely ignored. That thrill running up Chris Matthews’s leg has turned out to be outrageously expensive!
I sat down to my supper
‘Twas a bottle of red whiskey
I said my prayers and went to bed
That’s the last they saw of me
The masthead includes a quote from the works of Ludwig von Bertalanffy.
The staff of The New Terrapin Gazette expresses its sincere gratitude to the many people who have gifted the world with Fedora Linux, Emacs, and Firefox.
Publisher: The Eagle Wing Palace of The Queen Chinee.