Monday, May 03, 2010


Interesting, from David Horowitz. Hat Tip: American Power

"The real division in the modern world is between totalitarians and libertarians, and pivot of this division is the inherent conflict between liberty and equality"

Visit NewsRealBlog

Jonah Goldberg has written an important article in Commentary on what he calls the “neo-socialism” of the Obama administration. I like this label. It is both accurate and more palatable than the term “neo-communism” which I have applied to the hard left. But given the twenty-year political partnership between a neo-Communist like Billy Ayers and Obama, and Obama’s coterie of Communist Party mentors and allies, it is at bottom a distinction without a difference.

Neo-socialists are fellow travelers of neo-Communists and vice-versa. The real division in the modern world is between totalitarians and libertarians, and pivot of this division is the inherent conflict between liberty and equality. Since people are born unequal (in talent, capability, brain power and physical beauty and prowess) and since they develop unequally through circumstance, the only way to make them equal is to take away everyone’s liberty. And of course this will not make them equal because those who get to decide who is made equal and at what pace constitute a new and oppressing ruling class.

This truth is the focus of Federalist Paper #10 and is enshrined in the Constitution which is why every leftist is at war with it and is dedicated to rewriting it. So-called progressives are the 21st Century’s true reactionaries who have failed to learn the lessons of the most horrific social experiment ever inflicted on the human race which murdered 100 million people and destroyed the lives of billions. The term “neo-socialism” attaches them to that awful legacy and serves as a warning to present and future generations of the price that will be paid to achieve “social justice” and also of the fact that the pursuit “social justice” is an evil fantasy which can never be realized.

I have two quibbles with Jonah’s excellent piece. First, it was Rousseau (in The Social Contract) not Babeuf who identified private property as the root of all evil. Second, “social justice” is not a milder socialist impulse — it is in fact a code for communism in the hardest sense. Hayek wrote a brilliant book called The Mirage of Social Justice which argued that 1) there is no such entity as “society” which distributes wealth. Hence the call for social justice is simply a mask — a fake rationale — for distributing wealth politically and thus arrogating to one political faction totalitarian control of everyone else.

13 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Yes, a beautiful pearl of wisdom and truth.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Jewish Propaganda!

Tim Johnston said...

Funny.. I was waiting for someone to say that. What gave it away?!

Thanks for getting that out of the way early, anonymous

Anonymous said...

I like the piece.

For a long time,I have been pondering what to call this new form of totalitarianism which is stalking the Western world like an itinerant undertaker.

Neo-soc comes close, but is still not there, IMHO.

The first challenge to analyzing it comes in making the difficult distinction between Ends and Means.

The chief characteristics, as I see it, are as follows:

1. Enslavement of peoples of Western European origin.

2. Denial of ethnicity at large, while hypocritically reserving the real venom for the white race; and, increasingly, the Jews.

3. Mass, one-way immigration into previous western strongholds like Europe and North America, of nonwhite people who are NOT ASSIMILABLE, and who BREED RAPIDLY.

4. Confiscation of wealth from independent, middle and upper class families and re-distribution to the bottomless pit of irredeemable social pathology.

5. Constant harping on about 'social justice', constant guilt-mongering, etc.

6. Disarmament of the citizenry.

7 Dumbing down of educational standards, and discouragement of the critical, independent mind.

8. Deliberate degradation of the moral universe.

9. Propagandizing an anti-reproductive agenda: abortions are good, homosexuality is good, hedonism and selfishness are good, etc.

10.Undermining the ties between children and parents.

11. Creating dependency on government.

12. An unrelenting assault on the nuclear family.

You can, I hope, see where all of this is going.


Anonymous said...

Now tell me that logo does not look like the logo of the DA.

Anonymous said...

Neo corporatism

The corporates have gotten so powerful that at first they dictated to they have become the governments.

Anonymous said...

"Now tell me that logo does not look like the logo of the DA."

Well said Jim Beam, although I've been saying it since the DA's new logo was presented.

Yes indeed, massive corporations owned by the same who own the central banks, destroying all that is good, independent, middle class and family orientated! To sum it up, as the other anon suggested: Corporate Totalitarianism!
They brought you the ANC, the DA, Cope and in the US and UK, all the major parties there!

Common Sense

Trey Cruz said...

Why bother relabeling something that is essentially classic Gramschian Marxism?
To relabel it is simply lost effort and wasted time, at a time when we have no time to spare.

Exzanian said...

"this will not make them equal because those who get to decide who is made equal and at what pace, constitute a new and oppressing ruling class"

That's probably at the heart of the contradiction of socialism...Mmmm, although thinking about it, it could also make a good pro-anarchist argument...

Tim Johnston said...

"Neo corporatism"

I like that, anonymous. I think it sums it up, although there are many other elements too, as Anon points out.

eduard said...

We are returning to the old feudal system of the middle ages. The so-called few "nobles" owned everything while all the rest were just commoners with nothing and were just cheap "slave" labour being taxed to death to keep the "nobles" in the "wine and dine" mode. These "nobles' were nothing but scum of the earth who sold out their countries for their luxurious lifestyle.

Anonymous said...


What would be better - the wise ruling the dumb or the dumb ruling the wise?

Anonymous said...

@ Jim,

unfortunately those with the Gold may be sly, but they're definitely not "wise"!

Too many of the "wise" are also the "good" and the current system, as described by Eduard doesn't allow for those with morals to obtain the Gold. So we're back to square one, with the sly, usually evil, making decisions, usualy using the stupid, to control the wise, good amongst us!
It's common sense!

Common Sense