"Ideologues Have Hijacked
an Important Debate"
by Ward Kendall © 2002
- "Not Kosher"
Ward Kendall

To the Editor of New Nation News:

I just finished reading H. Millard's current article, "False Thinking On Immigration - It's Not Chicken Soup If The Recipe Is Changed". After reading it, I was prompted to pass on this email letter of mine to Jonah Goldberg at The National Review, just to let Mr. Millard know that Goldberg didn't get to spew his nonsense on the public without receiving some harsh feedback in return. If you wish, you may pass on this email to Mr. Millard, with the note that I enjoy his trenchant articles very much.

----- Original Message -----
To: letters@nationalreview.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:03 PM
Subject: Comment: "Ideologues Have Hijacked an Important Debate"

I just finished reading Jonah Goldberg's February 24th article, "Ideologues Have Hijacked an Important Debate". It is difficult to classify what the author of this piece of journalistic fiction was trying to accomplish, for it is permeated throughout with a subtle, almost vicious glee--one that only serves to further distance The National Review from any sense of reality.

The fantasy begins with the article's title, which suggests that there was an "important debate" about immigration going on in this country, until a bunch of Buchanan-led goons came along (presumably armed like Al Qaeda terrorists) and "hijacked" it. Nothing is further from the truth, since the only "debate" taking place in the US government, and society at large, amounts to little more than just how quick America can render itself into a non-white majority, all sung to the very off-Broadway tune of "ain't diversity grand!"

But what the perceptive reader of Mr. Goldberg's article ultimately discerns is this: Mr. Goldberg, through a long, torturously twisted goulash of words, is trying his best to avoid saying outright what otherwise silently undergirds his entire article, which amounts to this: A Peter Brimelowhandful of courageous, intelligent men, among them Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, and Jared Taylor, have, against great odds and rabid public scorn, managed to rise up to a sufficient plateau of public visibility to warn America about the dangers of rampant Third World immigration---which the effete armchair do-nothings over at The National Review strongly resent.

But what precisely did Mr. Goldberg have to say? Well, not much, actually. For starters he tried to impress the reader with a yawning account of his childhood "bris" (some arcane Jewish ritual which he mentioned simply because Pat Buchanan had been in attendance). After that, he stumbles on into the vast Gobi Desert of his article.

Here are some of the dried-up watering holes that Mr. Goldberg visits along the way:

Goldberg said: "But far more disturbing, it has marginalized the entire debate about immigration at the exact moment that the issue needs all the intelligent discussion it can get."

Pat BuchananComment: This Goldberg criticism, as with all of Mr. Goldberg's criticisms, has the bleating quality of a spoiled, whining child behind it. The only "disturbing" thing at all in Goldberg's accusation is the overwhelming gall he exhibits in suggesting that Buchanan has "marginalized" the immigration debate, when in reality moral cowards and/or multicultural supporters like Goldberg and his cadre of "conservative" androids over at The National Review are the ones who are guilty of marginalizing it.

Goldberg said: "At a time when Latinos make up 13% of American citizens, 28 million Americans are foreign-born and tens of millions of Americans are the children or grandchildren of immigrant-success stories, it hardly seems constructive to declare that immigrants, in general, and Mexicans in particular are "enemies" and "invaders" who threaten Western civilization."

Comment: That someone like Goldberg could make the egregious claim that Mexican immigrants are not a threat to Western civilization is absolutely breathtaking. To the contrary, everywhere that Mexican/Third World immigrants have gathered in large numbers of the US, the signposts of Western civilization have been falling. Goldberg (because he's a Jew, perhaps?) refuses to acknowledge that the English language is vanishing along the Texas/Mexican border, refuses to acknowledge that holidays honoring George WashingtonGeorge Washington and Abraham Lincolon have now been dumped into a nameless generic holiday, while a negroid "civil rights leader" has been elevated to near god-like status in America's pantheon of national heroes, refuses to acknowledge that whites, (strangely not enamored of "racial diversity") are now fleeing like Roman legions from the increasingly browned-out and gang-infested violence of cities like Miami and Los Angeles. And for Goldberg to deny (avoid?) these facts is to draw but one of two conclusions about him: He's either a consummate fool or he's a dirty, filthy, conniving liar, one bent on using the influence of The National Review to promote an agenda of lies.

Goldberg said: "Rather, a constructive discussion might simply focus on the idea that we want immigrants no matter where they come from--to become assimilated Americans, not aliens in our midst, and that maybe our current policies at home and on the border are not promoting that effectively...."

Comment: This remark is the same tired song and dance the entire conservative chorus continues to sing, as America continues to sink further and further into a gooey brown muck of uneducated (most Third World immigrants lack a high school degree) Mexicans, Guatemalans, and Costa Ricans. And focus particularly on Goldberg's use of the word "maybe", when he remarks about our current immigration policies "not promoting" assimilation. There is no "maybe" about it, Mr. Goldberg---it's a concrete fact. Again, Goldberg is utterly blind (or deliberately obfuscating?) to the reality that Pat Buchanan so eloquently exposed in his newest book, "The Death of the West".

Goldberg said: "Instead, we get Buchanan and his new book "The Death of the West," which warns hysterically that the white race is becoming an "endangered species"..."

Comment: "Hysterical"? Is that what I just heard? Well, well, now the mindless, factless, and baseless attacks typical of Goldberg's ilk begins. Notice his use of the word "hysterical". The implication here is that Buchanan's book is nothing more than insane blatherings. Notice too the quote marks around "endangered species", again suggesting that not a single shred of truth or fact underlies Buchanan's claim that whites are, in fact, headed for racial extinction. Why does Goldberg deliberately resort to ad hominem attacks here, without even making the pseudo-civil effort to refute Buchanan? Simple: because Goldberg has enough sense to know that he could later be refuted himself with a fact-laden, fact-rich counter argument. So, rather than attempt any refutation of Buchanan, Goldberg instead takes the coward's way out and resorts to a covert, hide-in-the-bushes, shoot-and-run tactic.

Goldberg continues: "... about to be swallowed up by the duskier Third World (defined as all nonwhites no matter how rich, educated or democratic).

Comment: Again, one senses a deep, almost childishly evil glee lurking behind Goldberg's words, as if he's flaunting his deliberate lies, but doesn't expect anyone to challenge him. As for the deliberate distortion behind these words of Goldberg, those who oppose Third World immigration never think of the "rich, educated, or democratic" of the Third World in their arguments to keep out the vast majority who are not.

Goldberg said: "We get Peter Brimelow, a once-respected conservative voice who now Sam Francisruns the shrill anti-immigration website VDARE.com, named for Virginia Dare, the first British child born in North America. We get syndicated columnist Samuel Francis (widely considered Buchanan's personal ideologist of choice) who has argued earnestly for "imposing adequate fertility controls on nonwhites." These are not stupid men--indeed, they are extremely talented individuals..."

Comment: Goldberg's final sentence in this statement says a great deal, both in favor of those who oppose Third World immigration and Goldberg's own morally and intellectually bankrupt news rag, The National Review. He readily admits that men like Brimelow and Francis are not merely "talented" individuals, but super-charges their abilities with the added modifier "extremely". Now, if men with these kinds of superlative talents have come to conclude that America is under dire threat with Third World immigration, what rational individual would be more likely to heed the words of some lesser man like Goldberg, rather than Brimelow or Francis?

Goldberg said: "Rather than focusing on how to create a rational immigration policy that recognizes the permanence of America's ethnic diversity, they live in denial about how to get back to the days when America was 90% white."

Well, I warned you. Goldberg's article is an arduous trek through an intellectual wasteland of snide innuendo and unsupported accusations, and he doesn't disappoint. He speaks of "denial" here, when in reality Goldberg has so much denial himself that even a cancer surgeon couldn't save him. America never had any "permanence" of ethnic diversity, but had, for most of its history, a dominant white population, with a minor side order of non-whites. That white-dominant population is what propelled America to world greatness. Not negroes, not native American Indians, not Chinese, not Mexicans. And, lastly, not Jews. All contributed some things, true, but no more than the salt and pepper shakers at the banquet table of Caucasian-created America.

Goldberg said: "Hiding out in their bunkers on the web..."

Comment: Here's a heavy-handed innuendo, one that suggests that those who oppose "Nazi card"Third World immigration are, in the end, nothing more than "Nazis", as indicated by Goldberg's use of the word "bunker", as in "Hitler bunker". Clever, isn't he? Well, not really. Goldberg's all too obvious, and painfully so. And it's clear why: Goldberg is unable to offer a single factual refutation to anything Buchanan has documented in his book, and so desperately pulls out the "Nazi card". But, like the rest of his article, his words are no more than a flimsy house of cards themselves, and blow over at the slightest whisper of reason.

Goldberg said: "...and in the pages of a few obscure publications, these unhappy paleoconservatives and neo-nativists have rallied the troops under a single flag: white supremacy."

Comment: Goldberg displays his gross ignorance once again, by labeling people who oppose Third World immigration as "white supremacists". Even avowed white racialists are not generally "white supremacists", a nuance of ideological difference that Goldberg is utterly ignorant of. He's like a trigger-happy soldier anxious to engage in combat, but unable to find out where the war is at.

Goldberg said: " No, they aren't Klansmen or skinheads, and, no, they won't like that label. But they are very serious about keeping America a white country because, in their view, white people, on the whole, make better Americans."

Comment: And there Goldberg leaves the reader hanging. Notice his technique, so utterly transparent. First, he states that individuals like Buchanan and his supporters believe that "white people make better Americans" (and expects you to vomit in disgust) and then leaves it at that, without a further word. What Goldberg doesn't want you to consider, not even remotely, is the very real possibility that white people do make better Americans, and that they have given more, created more, and died more for this nation in comparison to any other racial group on the planet. Goldberg hopes you'll buy the Big Lie that all races have contributed equally to the formation of America, when clearly that is provably false. In the end, Goldberg is deliberately trying to manipulate the reader. Why, unless he's got a dark reason for doing so?

From this point on, Goldberg foams and froths, wriggles and squirms about how "racist" Jared Taylorindividuals like Peter Brimelow, Samuel Francis and Jared Taylor truly are---and does so for what seems like an interminable amount of time. Yet, never once does he offer even a solitary shred of evidence that deflects, much less disproves, a single assertion by any of these men. Goldberg can't, you see, and that's why he hopes the reader trekking through his arid wasteland of words never discovers it.

Finally, Goldberg concludes: "Which brings us back to the basic issue: Race isn't the point, so drop it. Now."

Comment: Like turning over a rock in the burning desert and finding a hissing rattlesnake beneath, this last sentence exposes Goldberg's true purpose to the blazing light of day. His final pronouncement, delivered with all the fervor of a bolshevik attending a Stalin rally, reveals this National Review commissar/editor as many things, none flattering. It reveals him as a liar and a hypocrite, since he earlier stated, with all too evident disingenuousness, that he wanted a "dialogue" about immigration, but wants all those who oppose it (based on racial reasons) to be silenced. It reveals as well that Goldberg and his conservative cadre over at The National Review are morally and intellectually bankrupt, completely out of touch with reality, and totally unsympathetic to the concerns of white middle class America. And, perhaps most of all, it reveals that Goldberg himself is---first, last, and always---a Jew."

Ward Kendall
author of "Hold Back This Day"





  • "Hold Back This Day" - by Ward Kendall
    Hold Back This Day"Hold Back This Day" was written, says author Ward Kendall, because too many whites today cannot envision what kind of world they're leaving to their children and their children's children. It will be an unrecognizable world, Kendall explains, one in which whites will eventually vanish altogether.

    But the worst nightmare of all awaits the last surviving Caucasians, those few who will have to face unrelenting discrimination in a world of swarming, mongrelized humanity, even as the cold hand of racial extinction slowly closes around them.

    Yet "Hold Back This Day" is ultimately a tale of redemption and heroism in the face of impossible odds, one that will leave every white who loves his race cheering at the end".


Presented as Public Service: New Nation News not affiliated with above individual and views expressed not necessarily those of New Nation News and vice versa.
Last flag of the Republic - courtesy Flags of the World
Editor email since 8/22/98 web site map