The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

The Real Face of the Left

August 8th, 2011 by Myrhaf · 22 Comments · Uncategorized

In what kind of country can the state arrest anyone on a whim without due process of law? That would be a dictatorship, a tyranny, a country without freedom — precisely what Michael Moore wants America to be.

“Pres Obama, show some guts & arrest the CEO of Standard & Poors. These criminals brought down the economy in 2008& now they will do it again,” Mr. Moore wrote.

22 Comments so far ↓

  • Ashley

    Pity he doesn’t move to Cuba.

  • Mike

    I can’t imagine why he doesn’t move to Cuba. I saw him in that one movie and Cuba’s health care system looked fantastic from what he was showing us. Can’t wait to try it myself.

  • Inspector

    I don’t think I can even muster a snarky comment. I just hate Moore so much.

  • c andrew

    This is an example of why “soft fascism” always ends up as hard fascism.

    Their economic policies fly in the face of reality. They fail. But surely, such perfect theories cannot be wrong. There must be saboteurs! Death to the saboteurs!

    Minnie Moore doesn’t have the historical perspective to appreciate it but he is channeling post World War I Germany.

  • L-C

    I’ve seen a lot of “liberal” Americans argue in favor of Northern Europe style welfare statism. Free healthcare, education etc. But it turns out they don’t actually want a 20% higher income tax, 25% VAT and a 40% pay cut.

    It’s not hard to get a permit for permanent residence here, so why are there so few non-Swedish Westerners in Sweden? Maybe they do appreciate America, but then it’d be nice if they were to stop berating and destroying it.

  • madmax

    I’ve seen a lot of “liberal” Americans argue in favor of Northern Europe style welfare statism.

    This is one of the most popular go-to arguments of the Left when they want to counter anti-welfare state advocates. The Scandinavian welfare-states are treated as if they were utopias. They “work” and are proof that Americans and especially those evil Teabagers don’t know what they are talking about. Apparently Sweden, Norway and Denmark have refuted Von Mises and the Austrians. Who knew?

  • L-C

    Most such advocates know very little about Scandinavian countries. Taxes are the most obvious and transparent (since it can be researched online) issue, and even there they underestimate the pressure they put on the populace.

    But the devil is in the other details. The capital that is never saved and invested. The incompetence and indifference of the monolithic healthcare and education systems. The poor (and quite often fatal) treatment that Swedes take for granted and no one else even knows about.

    They entertain a fantasy about am America that keeps all its existing advantages along with bolt-on free healthcare and education, as if the price of those is nothing more than simply making it so. As if the two are compatible. And as if the Northern European systems would ever have been possible without having been propped up by the US.

  • Myrhaf

    L-C, do you buy the arguments that Muslims will take over Europe because they are having more babies?

  • L-C

    That is a factor that may well accelerate the process, but it would happen regardless. Multiculturalism, and the philosophy it rests on, makes Europe – some of its countries more than others, as evidenced by 90’s to current and future trends of France and Scandinavia – the perfect victim and target of Islam’s quest for a global caliphate.

    As a consequence of the West’s ascendancy into industrialized civilization, the average number of children born into each family has decreased. We don’t need, nor desire eight children to work on the family farm or to compensate for high infant mortality.

    Immigrants from the Middle East may not send their children to work on Swedish fields, but aside from cultural inertia and other factors affecting the issue, government child support scales more than linearly with the number of children per household…

  • Myrhaf

    I’ve always been suspicious of the demographic arguments from writers such as Mark Steyn. It seems to me that Muslim children born in Sweden will grow up Swedish, whether their parents like it or not, and they will likely have the same number of babies as the rest of the Swedes.

  • madmax

    It seems to me that Muslim children born in Sweden will grow up Swedish, whether their parents like it or not, and they will likely have the same number of babies as the rest of the Swedes.

    This is a dangerous assumption. Perhaps if there existed laissez-faire or something approaching it with a rational, individualistic philosophy uniting the culture you would see Islamic immigrants being assimilated. But in the context of an egalitarian Leftist culture like ours that idea of yours Myrhaf is a pipe-dream.

    A true believing Muslim’s first duty is to his god and then to the Ummah. Islam can be likened to the Borg hives of Star Trek fame. In order to break a young Muslim’s devotion to Islam and keep it broken you would need an incredibly strong culture; something the present day West is nowhere near being.

    Also, with regards to immigration in general and not just Muslims there is another component that Objectivists never talk about and that is the assimilation rate. A native culture can’t just assimilate immigrants from any culture and at any number. Take New Zealand for example. With only 4 million people, what would “open immigration” mean in practice? It would mean total destruction of New Zealand.

    There is a limit to the number of immigrants that a nation can assimilate in any time period. I think that even in a free society, a rational government would have to take into account the assimilation rate of new immigrants and the culture that immigrants come from. On those grounds alone, I don’t know if Muslim immigration would be tolerated in a fully rational society. I don’t think that Mark Steyn and those demographic obsessed Conservatives are necessarily wrong. Europe has 60 million Muslims. By mid century they may be the majority. There will be catastrophic civil unrest for sure.

    But in America, by mid century we may very well end up with a majority of Hispanic people. What will that spell? They are going to bring their egalitarian culture (with Christian window dressing) with them. Not to mention that in an egalitarian Leftist context, you can rest assured that most of those Hispanics will dislike white people and have absolutely no allegiance to America’s Founding Fathers or to Enlightenment American principles. What then?

    Immigration is a very dangerous phenomenon. But I conclude by saying none of this is easy to figure out. Its very difficult conceptually.

  • Myrhaf

    I grew up here in California with many children of Mexican immigrants, and they are as American as anyone else. They love America, speak english without an accent, are middle class, and often they marry outside their ethnic group. They are more likely to talk about the Simpsons or Captain America than about Cesar Chavez or la raza.

  • Katrina

    I also grew up in (southern) California and I agree entirely with Myrhaf. I would add that most of my Mexican friends, even ones whose parents arrived here illegally, believe very strongly in controlling the borders. Many even wanted to work for border patrol when they grew up. I can’t tell if all this anti-Hispanic immigration nonsense comes from ignorance or racism, but either way it’s awful. I can think of dozens of people I grew up with or went to college with who very sincerely and deliberately wanted to turn America socialist or otherwise statist. Every last one is white and born and raise in America.

  • L-C

    Sweden is submissive, or “recessive” if you will. The country is already unrecognizable in some places such as the southern city of Malmö, which houses a large number of Muslims and from which Jews have been forced to evacuate due to threats and overt hostility. As every conscious Westerner knows, you don’t want to live where Jews can’t.

    A couple millions of meek, multiculturalist and fundamentally Marxist Swedes are no match for what will soon be a Middle Eastern majority.

    Indeed, our leaders welcome and assist this trend while actively opposing any voices to the contrary, branding them as “racists”, “right-wing extremists” (their classic package deal gotcha against classical liberals) or “xenophobics”. All with the eager support of the media, of course. It is a nation undergoing forced collective suicide.

    I agree with madmax that it would take a strong culture to continuously and indefinitely repel Islamic influence. Sweden is as opposite of a strong culture as you’ll find on Earth. What would it mean to love Sweden, even if they did? To love the futile?

    There are immigrants here of the sort you mention, Myrhaf, but they are an inert substance in this compound. The supplantation of our native populace with a Middle Eastern one acts a catalyst to Islam’s increasing dominance, not unlike the way that dominance acts as a catalyst to Europe’s downfall. Kantianism would’ve brought it down regardless, but irrationality doesn’t guarantee a slow death.

    For an individual, even a seemingly small amount of evasion can be fatal way before his time is up. This goes for nations and continents as well.

  • Inspector

    It is a bit of a game changer when Moslems form those sort of “colonies” where they form their own cities and take over local law, substituting Sharia, excluding natives, and persecuting the Jews. I hear stories there are some such places in Michigan, actually…

  • very,very,madmax

    Note: This comment is laced with anger. It is not for the faint of heart.

    I grew up here in California with many children of Mexican immigrants, and they are as American as anyone else. They love America, speak english without an accent, are middle class, and often they marry outside their ethnic group. They are more likely to talk about the Simpsons or Captain America than about Cesar Chavez or la raza.

    This is naive. Myhraf, you are old enough to know better.

    My step-father owned liquor stores in Spanish Harlem in NYC. I used to work there in the summer when I was a kid. Even back in the 80s the anti-white sentiment was palpable. The Hispanic people in the inner cities were NOT integrated into American culture. They listened to different music, did not watch American TV shows and had no allegiance to the principles of the Enlightenment America such as remain in the modern world. They referred to Whites as “gringos” and constantly mocked “white America”. And this was in the 80s! I can only imagine what it must be like today, especially in California which is now only 40% white. That’s right – only 40% white. Let that sink in.

    Look, I am not a racialist, but in the context of an egalitarian Marxist/Leftist culture – which IS our culture – multi-racialism is VERY problematic. Is any Objectivist actually following the black flash mob riots that are occurring ALL OVER American cities? These are feral blacks that are deliberately attacking and savagely beating whites; pulling them from cars Reginald Deny style. What the hell are Objectivists paying attention to today? Can none of them see past the economics to the cultural damage that is going on. Do any of you watch TV commercials? Do you not see how white males are portrayed? Does this not turn your stomach. Are you fucking lemmings like the rest of the American citizenry.

    Myhraf, L-C is basically telling you that Europe is LOST. He lives it. He sees what the Kantian/Marxist Left has done to the white Euro citizenry. Look at what’s going on in London, the capital of what was once the center of a great empire. The black populatio of Europe is less than 2 % yet it accounts for roughly 80% of the rioters in the Londond insanity. And just think, Europe has 60 million Muslims!! Does anyone understand what that portends for the future of the European continent? Can you be so oblivious to think that those Muslims will have allegiance to European civilization? To Shakespeare, Marlow, Chauser, Dante, anyone? Immigration must exist in the context of a strong culture with a unifying cultural ethos. Where is that today?

    Yes, a Randian, individualist cultural climate would be able to handle a multi-racial society. But that is not what we have and it will not exist this century; it might not exist ever. We have the sickness of today’s Left and it is SICK; something which most Objectivists don’t see as they keep obsessing over some fantasized Christian theocracy coming from today’s Conservatives who are barely even Christian (by the standards of 4 or 5 centuries ago). Sarah Palin a Christian theocrat. Please, only an idiot with a PHD and a podcast like Diana Hsieh could say something that stupid. Palin a milf with a rockin body and she loves to show it off. Christian theocracy? God save me from the Objectivist witha a hardon for religion.

    I fear that Europe is lost. America too. America is going to become a Hispanized third world country that resembles either Brazil or Mexico (hell, we are going to end up with all of Mexico’s Mestizos anyway). And then you will see the love that all those “American loving” Hispanics will show you Myhraf.

    BTW, did you know that when the Mexican soccer team came to LA to play the American soccer team the Hispanics in the crowed cheered for the Mexican team and booed the Americans? All America is to them is a place to make money if they can. That is not love of country. A nation can not survive if its citizens do not LOVE it. You should know that Myhraf. Shit how can an Objectivist not know that. Especially one in their 50s.

    The more Objectivist blogs I read, the more depressed I get. Lindsay Perigo is right. Objectivists and the Objectivist movement has no soul. Its just passionless Randroid crap. Rand herself would spit on today’s Objectivist movement. Of that, I have no doubt. Its earlier than we think. So fucking early that it depresses the shit out of me.

    L-C, if you ever have the stomach for it, perhaps you could guest blog about the cultural realities of Europe. It simultaneously fascinates me depresses me. You seem like a subdued type of guy that knows the lowdown of your world and what it takes to live in it. Many Americans are in denial about the world in which they live. They think that its still the 80s or early 90s. The don’t real that we live our lives under the ever watchful eyes of our Leftist Overlords. Piss them off and you could experience a world of hurt.

    Sad fucking times.

  • North Bridge

    Madmax: “I think that even in a free society, a rational government would have to take into account the assimilation rate of new immigrants and the culture that immigrants come from. On those grounds alone, I don’t know if Muslim immigration would be tolerated in a fully rational society.”

    I agree with that statement. Just as a nation (or culture) has to develop through some version of the Renaissance and Enlightenment before it is able to adopt capitalism, so I think an individual must acquire certain fundamental premises in order to be able to live in a modern, civilized society. There is a basic framework of ideas that people in the West share — a more-or-less unreflected respect for common sense, science, the pursuit of material possessions, individual rights and the rule of law, which most people just take for granted. Even though people in the West are brought up with these ideas from childhood, they in fact represent a sophisticated conceptual achievement. People who do not share these basic premises are not suited to live amongst us, in my humble opinion.

    The arguments typically given in favor of free immigration originated with pro-capitalist economists, if I’m not mistaken. The idea being that capitalism is a self-regulating system, such that immigrants under laissez faire will have every incentive to work and educate themselves, and thus will within a generation or two catch up with the native population.

    These economists may imagine that they are “value-free,” culture-free, and civilization-independent, but this line of thinking in fact presupposes very specific cultural foundations. It does not apply to Man qua Man. It presupposes men that are civilized enough to have some basic regard for reality and their own well-being. It is just not true that a large tribe of primordial savages, supplanted into the midst of a capitalist society but passionately hating capitalism and civilization, will somehow become civilized by the pressures of living under capitalism.

    As much as I believe this applies to the problem of Muslim immigration, by the same token I strongly disagree with complaints about the cultural impact of Hispanic immigration. Egalitarian premises and “dislike of white people” [really?] are the sorts of issues that do sort themselves out by living in a freer society. Those sorts of problems are worlds and millenia above the worship of religious dictatorship, holy war, slavery, and general slaughter of anyone outside the tribe. The poorest uneducated Mexican dirt farmer who comes here to earn a living is a thousand years more culturally advanced than your average Muslim tribal savage. It is an insult to the Mexican to even compare the two.

    Some people here will know that I disagree with the doctrine of free immigration for other reasons, and that I believe illegal immigrants violate the rights of anyone living here legally — but I would never oppose Hispanic immigration for “cultural” reasons. That seems like a racist position; I don’t know what else to make of it.

  • Michael

    it is a bit rich to talk about tribal savages when your own people have no clue what enlightenment values are and when your own native population complains about immigrants “stealing our jobs” or using their welfare programs. Sounds to me like the tribalism is yours

  • Myrhaf

    Madmax, what you call naive is just my stating the facts of my experience. There are sons and daughters of Mexican immigrants who love America. I’ve seen it. One of my best friends as a child was Pat Gomez, who grew up to be a lieutenant in the Marine Corps, and he would have gone farther had he not died of cancer at 25.

    The forces of multiculturalism, collectivism and statism are working to balkanize America. Ayn Rand saw that before anyone back in the ’70s. However, America is still a mixed country in all respects, and one of the mixtures is that some immigrants buy into the leftist progam of hyphenating America and destroying the melting pot, whereas others assimilate and are quite happy with the USA. The anti-US side is probably worse in the inner city slums, but everything is worse there, where welfare and resentment rule. The bad guys might be winning, but they have not won yet.

  • Inspector

    My take is that we have to be careful to keep contexts. A mixed economy welfare state rife with multiculturalism is not the same thing as a laissez-faire capitalist country with a culture of reason. The principled position is one of a much freer immigration policy, but to advocate an immediate switch to one in today’s context would be as irresponsible as advocating an immediate switch to a voluntarily funded government without other sweeping reforms first.

    While statements of principle are important, they must always, always, *always* be put in their proper context with language like, “ultimately, we need to…” But with careful caveats of the necessary reforms and changes needed. To just toss out our immigration positions out of context makes us look foolish and undermines our position with everyone but the libertarians and the hard left.

    (I’m glad that Leonard Peikoff made a stand on this one.)

    As regards La Raza supremecists and such, yes, indeed our culture is still sufficient to turn many away from it, and I know personally plenty of folks in that category just like you do, Myrhaf. But I don’t think that our culture is sufficient enough, nor our government free enough, nor our constitutional laws supported enough, to assume that this problem can work itself out alone. I do regard these types as a proper threat that should influence current immigration policy.

    Many would not pass a basic treason test and openly advocate the overthrow of the American government. I think some of them go far enough that, even in a totally capitalist society, they’d be thrown out on their ear. So suffice to say, I definitely think that the harder policy that today’s context calls for should do something about them.

  • North Bridge

    Inspector: Excellent comment.

  • Jim May

    God save me from the Objectivist witha a hardon for religion.

    Ah, I believe I’ve heard this music before..