Pope Jonah

VDARE.com`s Jonah
Journal:



08/28/01 –
The Origin Of Goldbergism



07/10/01 –
Goldbergism: The Lowest (Terminal) Stage Of
Conservatism



06/26/01 –
The First Universal Goldberg?



Goldbergism – The Lowest (Terminal) Stage of Conservatism.



Goldberg
Yields to Gottfried!



08/17/01 – Goldberg Among The
Caribou



03/01/02 – Jonah Whales on
VDARE.COM! – by Steve Sailer



03/01/02 – Peter Brimelow (“a
once-respected conservative voice”) on Goldberg of
National …

Despite his stated

hatred
for

Joseph de Maistre
, who advocated papal supremacy
both to settle political differences and to avoid
European revolutionary disorder, Jonah Goldberg has been
gradually claiming his own equivalent of infallible
authority. In this respect he has followed the venerable
lead not only of political theorists, but also, more
directly, of that once-feisty conservative icon W. F.
Buckley.

It was, after all, Goldberg`s benefactor at the
former National Review who began the practice of

hurling into outer darkness
“conservatives” who
failed to toe his party line. What Buckley did as an
exercise in self-importance, against militancy and
later, against critics of his fawning on neocon
overlords, Goldberg is now repeating, as the imposer of
a new creed for reconstructed conservatives.

Thus, amazingly, he recently condemned the
Westminster Dog Show because of the racist, eugenicist
subtext that he

sniffed out
in concerns about canine anatomy. To
Goldberg, it was scandalous that – “after the Nazis” –
such acts of political insensitivity go on.

He also fumes that not all “conservatives” accept his
preferred sets of abstract universals, a k a “human
rights,” as the foundation of their politics. He decries
the insidious inroads of those who think of human beings
in terms of specific historical, ethnic characteristics
and emphasizes the incompatibility between this
pernicious idea and authentic “conservatism.”

Least of all are conservatives, according to
Goldberg`s authorized version, permitted to advocate or
practice identitarian politics – at least, not the
goyim
. Jewish ethnic politics are another matter,
since whatever the nationalist Right in Israel does or
does not do is by definition both “democratic” and
“conservative.”

In his commentary
on the heresiarchs Sam Francis, Pat Buchanan, and Peter
Brimelow, published on February 24 in the Los Angeles
Times
, Goldberg carried his duties as a propagator
of dogmatic theology one step further. He pronounces
that conservatives who question his selective notion of
global identity are to be driven out of the conservative
communion. Such deviationists, he asserted, take their
bearings from

Oswald Spengler
, the German historian who in

Decline of the West
foreshadowed the new axis of
identitarian evil by creating anxiety about a vanishing
Western population.

Goldberg seems to have learned about Spengler exactly
where he picked up his knowledge about Maistre, in the

“Five Minute University”
featured on “Saturday Night
Live.”
Buchanan, we are told, “warns hysterically that
the white race is an “endangered species about to be
swallowed up by the duskier Third World.” Also indicted
– for what Goldberg`s colleague at the National Review,

Ramesh Ponnuru
apparently called an “identity
politics for white people” — are Brimelow, whose website
features “a Chinese menu of white-pride dishes,” and the
irascible Sam Francis, who “is widely considered
Buchanan`s personal ideologist of choice.”

All of these comments are clearly open to challenge.
Buchanan`s newest book contains only two references to
Dr. Francis (and one to me – though, as a minor heretic,
I may not deserve any more). By contrast, there are at
least a dozen references to Lincoln and about the same
number to

Martin Luther King
,
many of them strikingly favorable. As I

observed
in
Insight,

The Death of the West
bears no resemblance to
the hate-literature being stridently attacked in the
neocon-liberal national press. It is full of praise for
the “Christian patriots” who launched the civil rights
movement, and if it does defend the right of Southerners
to admire Robert E. Lee, it compares such veneration to
what blacks might rightly feel for King.  

Buchanan also sounds like David Horowitz when he
talks about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing it was
sound legislation subsequently derailed by liberal
leadership, both black and white. Although Goldberg`s
and Ponnuru`s gray eminence, Buckley, held

far more conservative
opinions on such matters
before his

late-life conversion
to neoconservatism, Buchanan`s
views on American race issues, in The Death of the
West,
are by contrast strikingly mainstream.
Except for his commendable unwillingness to trash
Southern symbols, Buchanan takes the civil rights
position found in the now reconstructed National
Review.

As for Buchanan`s remarks about Western core
populations, is there anything wrong with noting the
obvious? The Euro-German population in Germany will
likely fall by thirty million in the next fifty years,
as Buchanan rightly points out. Even more ominous,
according to demographer

Herwig Birg
at the University of Bielefeld, the same
population base, which now shows a l:2 per couple
birthrate, may plunge, barring dramatic reversal, from
83 to 30 million within a space of one-hundred years.

By referring to ethnic groups that choose to
disappear – whether out of guilt, misguided idealism, or
yuppie selfishness – as “dying,” are we, as Goldberg
tells us, inciting “identity politics for whites”? And
if that were the case, for which I see no other evidence
in Buchanan`s book than his recitation of transparently
true statistics, why is that intrinsically wrong?

Are we required not to divulge such facts, lest we
hurt someone`s feelings? Should we, for example, be
forbidden to mention the 3 to 1 disparity in violent
crimes between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites, lest
we offend our Latino citizens – an indiscretion Goldberg
would have us avoid at all costs?

Curiously, Ponnuru,

David Brooks,
Goldberg, and the other prelates of
the neocon church universal find nothing wrong about an
Israeli state that practices (well!) identitarian
politics. There is no other fitting description for a
political society in which non-Jews have never held
national offices or command positions in the military
and one in which it is legally impossible for Jews and
non-Jews to intermarry. I believe that Jews have a moral
right to live in such a

tightly national state
without being forced to
invite in unskilled Hispanics or to marry Africans. But
shouldn`t Euro-Americans be given the same right?

One should be grateful to politically incorrect
websites that raise such questions. The fact is that the
multicultural Left, including its bogus “conservative”
representatives, would never allow such an unsettling
conversation to take place anywhere in its
multibillion-dollar media empire.

I believe that Brimelow may have understated the
centrality of the young Jonah as a voice of
“conservative” orthodoxy. It is niggardly to celebrate
Jonah merely as the moving spirit of the publication
that

used to be
National Review but has since gone
on to bigger things as the “Goldberg Review.”

Even more significantly, Goldberg has raised his
pontifical voice as a formulator of revealed truths.
Although these truths happen to be the standard leftist
opinions of my youth, they are now being reclaimed as a
compassionate “conservatism” at war with extremism.
Moreover, the convoluted phrases Goldberg employs about
how the immigration “debate has

marginalized Buchanan
and those in his orbit, ” by
marginalizing the entire debate about immigration at the
exact moment that the issue needs all the intelligent
discussion it can get,” has a very simple moral meaning
– one worthy of a papal sovereign.

Goldberg means that Buchanan and his friends will
have hell to pay for raising the immigration issue –
contrary to the expressed wishes of those on the neocon-liberal
Left that the issue, like the European population, fade
away. Thus speaks the leader of the Goldberg movement,
as he flits between TV interviews and TV commentaries
and renders his sprawling judgments in the national
press.

The old pope should be happy with such a
socially-acceptable successor.


Paul Gottfried
is Professor of Humanities at
Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of

After Liberalism
and

Carl Schmitt: Politics and Theory.

April 03, 2002