From the paleo list at egroups. Also a few posts inquiring into Ron Radosh'es current views on the Old Right, Taft and John T.Flynn. Cut those out since this stuff on Chavez is enuf bandwidth.
Michael Pugliese
Paleo is a list for discussing ideas relating to paleoconservatism, paleolibertarianism and paleo-orthodoxy. To subscribe: just send a blank e-mail to paleo-subscribe at eGroups.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 12 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Gottfried on Chavez
From: "Louis R. Andrews" <lrand at groupz.net>
2. Ronald Radosh
From: craigpreus at aol.com
3. Re: Ronald Radosh
From: Scottpost at aol.com
4. Re: Gottfried on Chavez
From: Elizabeth Wright <editor at issues-views.com>
5. Re: Gottfried on Chavez
From: Scottpost at aol.com
6. Re: Gottfried on Chavez
From: "Paul Gottfried" <gottfrpe at etown.edu>
7. Re: Gottfried on Chavez
From: "Paul Gottfried" <gottfrpe at etown.edu>
8. Re: Gottfried on Chavez
From: "Louis R. Andrews" <lrand at groupz.net>
9. The Veil of Piacular Subjectivity: Buchananism and the New World Order
From: jcarney2 at alumni.law.upenn.edu
10. THE BLUNDER (fwd from YTaNR)
From: KOPFF E CHRISTIAN <kopff at spot.colorado.edu>
11. Re: THE BLUNDER (fwd from YTaNR)
From: "Thomas Piatak" <tpiatak at arterhadden.com>
12. Re: THE BLUNDER (fwd from YTaNR)
From: "Gerald Martin" <dubeaux at swbell.net>
________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 08:57:08 -0500
From: "Louis R. Andrews" <lrand at groupz.net> Subject: Gottfried on Chavez
Paul Gottfried on Chavez.
http://www.vdare.com/gottfried_chavez.htm -- Louis Andrews Stalking the Wild Taboo http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/ ---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________ Message: 4
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 15:05:59 -0400
From: Elizabeth Wright <editor at issues-views.com> Subject: Re: Gottfried on Chavez
Louis R. Andrews wrote:
>
> Paul Gottfried on Chavez.
>
> http://www.vdare.com/gottfried_chavez.htm
> --
>From Paul Gottfried, "No Tears Over Chavez" - VDARE:
<<As a longtime advocate of very liberal immigration policy, Chavez and her then assistant John J. Miller (who later became a senior editor at National Review) were given their own Center for Equal Opportunity. Here these fervent pluralists not only made the case for Third World immigration as a “conservative” position but fought wars without quarter against those who disagreed. The Center was deeply involved in a surly campaign waged against paleoconservative journalist Samuel T. Francis. Miller, presumably speaking on behalf of his boss as well as himself, opined to a reporter at Washington's City Paper that Francis, an outspoken opponent of immigration, “should be driven out of the conservative movement.” >>
=================
And, again, Gottfried is on target. The only thing that comes to my mind when I hear the name Linda Chavez is her love of immigration, immigration and more immigration--and also forced, coercive integration, no matter what the cost to individual rights. I had not heard about her battering of Sam Francis, but I should have guessed. Now that I know this, I, along with Gottfried, will also experience Schadenfreude as she squirms in front of the spotlight.
A case like this really makes clear just how embedded these immigrants are, legal or otherwise, into so many segments of this society. The desire for washerwomen and babysitters is obviously a corrupting force, even among the so-called principled "conservatives." Everybody's in on the action.
This story is so gratifying because it again proves that no matter how much conservative types pander to the coloreds, it will always be the liberals who get to decide who the good guys are. For all of Chavez's support of current immigration policies, Hispanics still consider her a curse and she has developed no constituency among them.
Elizabeth
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Issues & Views
DEliz at aol.com - and
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:43:30 EST
From: Scottpost at aol.com Subject: Re: Gottfried on Chavez
Don't see eye to eye with Paul on this, -- it's not really fair to Linda, whatever her sins vis a vis Sam Francis, to describe her as an immigration fanatic. Her published views are parsed in my piece, also on vdare.com--Scott McConnell
________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:15:12 -0500
From: "Paul Gottfried" <gottfrpe at etown.edu> Subject: Re: Gottfried on Chavez
Thank you Elizabeth for your sound support.
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:14:16 -0500
From: "Paul Gottfried" <gottfrpe at etown.edu> Subject: Re: Gottfried on Chavez
Although there is quite little on which Scott and I would disagree, Linda Chavez is certainly one such issue. The essay from Commentary that Scott quotes is one I took a look at, with predictable disgust. Note it is impossible for me to pick up that toiletpaper publication without feeling an imperious urge to barf. But I did it nonetheless and discovered nothing in Chavez's utterances that would contradict my judgment. She wants us to be somewhat more discriminating in letting in the world's unwashed but suggests such a policy may be necessary to shut up anti-immigration bigots, the types, like us, that Chavez and Miller are out to get. It is also impossible to bracket out the Chavez-Miller strike on Sam,done in conjunction with the journalistic Left.Saying we should forget about this sbadataggine minore is like insisting that Hitler was a traditional German statesman, who just had a thing about Jews and Slavs. I regret that Scott couldn't hear Chavez when she came to her college--and tried to outdo Juan Williams in depicting black suffering at the hands of white racists. Although an Hispanic Jew, I've seen her represented on the neocon Fox News channel as an exemplar of "Catholic social ethics" when she took that Guatemalan menial as a "guest" into her suburban home. Give me Zoe Baird any day! I prefer JAPs to Jewish liberals who pose as Catholic traditionalists to enlist the drooling support of movement conservative idiots. ----- Original Message ----- From: <Scottpost at aol.com> To: <editor at issues-views.com>; <paleo at egroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [Paleo] Gottfried on Chavez
> Don't see eye to eye with Paul on this, -- it's not really fair to Linda,
> whatever her sins vis a vis Sam Francis, to describe her as an immigration
> fanatic. Her published views are parsed in my piece, also on
> vdare.com--Scott McConnell
>
> Paleo is a list for discussing ideas relating to paleoconservatism,
paleolibertarianism and paleo-orthodoxy. To subscribe: just send a blank
e-mail to paleo-subscribe at eGroups.com.
________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:37:39 -0500
From: "Louis R. Andrews" <lrand at groupz.net> Subject: Re: Gottfried on Chavez
Elizabeth Wright wrote:
> >From Paul Gottfried, "No Tears Over Chavez" - VDARE:
> <<As a longtime advocate of very liberal immigration policy, Chavez and
> her then assistant John J. Miller (who later became a senior editor at
> National Review) were given their own Center for Equal Opportunity. Here
> these fervent pluralists not only made the case for Third World
> immigration as a “conservative” position but fought wars without quarter
> against those who disagreed. The Center was deeply involved in a surly
> campaign waged against paleoconservative journalist Samuel T. Francis.
> Miller, presumably speaking on behalf of his boss as well as himself,
> opined to a reporter at Washington's City Paper that Francis, an
> outspoken opponent of immigration, “should be driven out of the
> conservative movement.” >>
As someone who read that Washington City Paper article at the time, I will say that it was unforgivable. That Miller later went on to be Senior Editor at NR just shows the appalling state of US conservatism. The article, by the way, was a very long hit piece - actually the cover article. It was clear that the Center for Equal Opportunity (opportunity for all but paleocons) had a lot to do with it. -- Louis Andrews Stalking the Wild Taboo http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/ ---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________ _
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:28:50 -0700 (MST)
From: KOPFF E CHRISTIAN <kopff at spot.colorado.edu> Subject: THE BLUNDER (fwd from YTaNR)
A few lines from the Young Turks at National Review. LC is a "principled conservative" who acted "in the spirit of Christian charity." Ponnuru and Miller joined in the hue and cry against, respectively, Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis. When the time came for a similar treatment for their friends, Rich Nadler and Linda Chavez, they look around for allies and see no support from the Bush camp while people who might have helped have been "evacuated.". Christian Kopff kopff at spot.colorado.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Washington Bulletin: National Review's Internet Update for January 9, 2001: THE BLUNDER By John J. Miller and Ramesh Ponnuru
The withdrawal of Linda Chavez as the nominee for secretary of labor is severely disappointing. It certainly bursts the bubble of enthusiasm so many conservatives felt just last week, when George W. Bush completed his cabinet selection, and his team looked so good. Chavez is a popular and principled conservative. She handed her formal withdrawal today with grace and dignity. She would have been a tremendous asset to the White House....
Linda Chavez deserved better than this. She has been persecuted for acting in the spirit of Christian charity. She is a conservative who has acted with compassion. It is a shame she now will not serve the country. ____________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:40:52 -0500
From: "Thomas Piatak" <tpiatak at arterhadden.com> Subject: Re: THE BLUNDER (fwd from YTaNR)
I find it very hard to believe that Chavez's motives were purely altruistic. Even if they were, though, I don't think that "compassion" for this woman justifies abetting an illegal alien's entry into this country. At the very least, Chavez helped here find work--including with her neighbor--even though she knew it was illegal for her to work in the United States. If all of us practiced Chavez's particular compassion, the United States would cease to exist and become instead the northernmost province of Mexico.
>>> kopff at spot.colorado.edu 01/09/01 06:28PM >>>
A few lines from the Young Turks at National Review. LC is a "principled
conservative" who acted "in the spirit of Christian charity." Ponnuru and
Miller joined in the hue and cry against, respectively, Pat Buchanan and
Sam Francis. When the time came for a similar treatment for their friends,
Rich Nadler and Linda Chavez, they look around for allies and see no
support from the Bush camp while people who might have helped have been
"evacuated.".
Christian Kopff
kopff at spot.colorado.edu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Washington Bulletin: National Review's Internet Update for
January 9, 2001: THE BLUNDER
By John J. Miller and Ramesh Ponnuru
The withdrawal of Linda Chavez as the nominee for secretary of labor is severely disappointing. It certainly bursts the bubble of enthusiasm so many conservatives felt just last week, when George W. Bush completed his cabinet selection, and his team looked so good. Chavez is a popular and principled conservative. She handed her formal withdrawal today with grace and dignity. She would have been a tremendous asset to the White House....
Linda Chavez deserved better than this. She has been persecuted for acting in the spirit of Christian charity. She is a conservative who has acted with compassion. It is a shame she now will not serve the country. ____________________________________________________________
Paleo is a list for discussing ideas relating to paleoconservatism, paleolibertarianism and paleo-orthodoxy. To subscribe: just send a blank e-mail to paleo-subscribe at eGroups.com.
________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:29:43 -0000
From: "Gerald Martin" <dubeaux at swbell.net> Subject: Re: THE BLUNDER (fwd from YTaNR)
--- In paleo at egroups.com, "Thomas Piatak" <tpiatak at a...> wrote:
> If all of us practiced Chavez's
>particular compassion, the United States would cease to exist and
>become instead the northernmost province of Mexico.
>
Exactly. It is hard to read more than a few of this woman's column's - omnipresent at "movement" conservative sites like Town Hall - without detecting an agenda: the browning of the United States, a makeover of this nation's population into people who look like Linda Chavez. I also sense from her writings that this is a woman who, as a Jew and a Hispanic in a largely gentile and (for the moment)non-Hispanic country, is uncomfortable in her own skin. Her solution: bring on La Raza.
That such a person could be embraced by folks like Limbaugh and whatever white people they have left at National Review indicates that they either have a death-wish or are fundamentally stupid.
Gerald Martin
________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________