It’s Time to Nationalize Liberal Websites

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


6a00d83451c47869e200e54f23e5df8833-800wi

Richard (RJ) Eskow, a fellow of the Campaign for America’s Future, a project of George Soros, has issued a bold call for nationalizing Google and Amazon.

There is no doubt to any thinking Socialist that both companies would no doubt benefit from being nationalized and the vast improvements and service that would result from all those overpaid engineers and executives fleeing to be replaced by union members.

Just imagine your Google searches taking only four to eight weeks to complete.

Or Amazon charging you twice as much for your orders to subsidize free contraceptives for all customers.

But we’re ignoring the elephant in the room. Forget nationalizing Google or Amazon. It’s time to nationalize Salon. And while we’re at it, let’s nationalize Slate, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and MSNBC.

Once they’re nationalized, they will be refocused on serving underserved communities by providing timely information about good nutrition, the history of the Underground Railroad and fun facts about highways. They would also contain announcements about upcoming contracts and transcripts of Congressional debates.

While they might lose some readers, by no longer being bound by the profit motive and the pageview counter, they would be free to make a genuine contribution to our society.

Maybe one day we can nationalize Google. Let’s start by nationalizing Salon.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    I’m don’t mind supporting free contraceptives (voluntarily, of course), but I have qualms about supporting common core. Of course, Bill Gates is pushing common core with his own money. Too bad he isn’t starting schools but lobbying to have my money spent on his projects.

    What is it about these rich SOBs that once they get money by being good competitors they want to be free of market forces. Well, at least we have the Koch brothers. It’s looking more like Atlas Shrugged everyday; there are the crony pro-state corporate heads and there are the virtuous produces who respect the private property of others.

    Sadly your reductio absurdum will be lost on the left. They’d love to nationalize Salon as long as it means Fox is shut down. Indeed, they can just call it NPR online. Don’t give them ideas!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      it’s natural feudalism, power feeds on power

      • Pete

        I read about feudalism in China before 0 BC and even before the Han dynasty.

        Now some, historians and others, will argue that it was not feudalism but something similar and they have technical terms for it. They will be very nuanced about it. There is something to be said for that, but it seems to work out the same. There is power in the hands of the few. They have a hierarchy of military support and they live high on the hog.

        Now my question is this. If Marxism is scientific and if one form of social organization naturally follows another, how is that feudalism (as the average man conceives it) happened before Marx said it would and keeps RECURRING throughout history? There isn’t this grand progression from hunter gatherers to feudalism to Marxism.

        I know the answer. Karl Marx analysed history wrong. Partly because he did not have the resources that we have today and partly because he analysed it with so much bias.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          There’s nothing scientific about building up centralized power structures. Some of the methodology is supposed to be scientific, but it’s no more scientific than many other tyrannies in history. Communications and other technologies made it a bit more viable, but that’s it.

          Modernity means things like crowdsourcing. Using technology to underpin a centralized tyranny doesn’t make it scientific.

          • Pete

            I hate the word modern. It comes from Latin and means “Mode of the day” (I am not trying to look smart. Just yesterday I admitted admitted in an FPM post just how my knowledge of Latin was. I am just setting the table for other, The Left).

            What ever a group of people is doing right now is modern by the literal definition if not by the connotational or academic definitions. Which is why the term post-modern makes no sense. How can a person ever be post-modern? The people living in the 1,000 years form now will be living in “their modern times”. So calling something post modern in the 1960s or now will not makes sense to them. The only sense it will make is that the people who said it labeled it as such and probably were conceited.

            Saying that you are living in a post modern time is like saying you are living in the end time. Most people whoever lived or will not or have not lived in a post modern or end tines. If more than a generation or two goes by what do you call what they do post-post modern or post^n modern?

  • Habbgun

    Why stop at nationalizing liberal websites? Why not just nationalize liberals? Nationalized liberals could be sent to do humanitarian work at the border (if they are Occupiers they already have scabies so that is not even an issue). Liberals can clean streets and do manual labor that would otherwise be done by machines causing global warming. A nationalized liberal is the fuel that can make America great.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I like it

    • mike

      While you’re at it, nationalize unions.

  • Contemptuous Maximus

    I like the idea of nationalizing liberals. They could be put to good use as nation builders in places like Iraq and Afghanistan after the conservatives with the guns (a.k.a. The military) have killed most of the bad guys and gone home.

  • Tom von Mises

    Forget nationalizing their websites, or themselves, go right to exiling them.

  • Hard Little Machine

    MSNBC un-ironically believes it really IS an un-elected 4th branch of government.,