#1 Amazon Book: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
I just added this book to my “in the mail” list.
I’ve been eyeing it for a few weeks anyway, but now it has hit the #1 spot on Amazon.com.
Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler’s National Socialism and Mussolini’s Fascism.
Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.
Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler’s Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song.
Many of today’s progressives would probably be better categorized as “closet fascists” — they don’t openly praise the global Islamic fascism movement; but they certainly denounce efforts to combat it, and create moral equivalency with Islamic terrorists and Western governments.
I’m glad this must-read is on its way to me now!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UPDATE (from Dan): I was pleased to see the book prominently displayed at the Borders in the Greater Cincinnati Airport. I bought a conservative book not so prominently displayed, Laura Ingraham’s Power to the People. But, I just ordered Jonah’s book from Amazon. I look forward to reading it.
55 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Does it really matter whether Hitler was left or right, why are people obsessed with this empty tribalism, what really matters is the policies, and what effect they have. To the person on the street Left or right means nothing. This obsession with polarised politics damages and distorts politics and does harm to society. Just like some conservatives have adopted the anti gay agenda as it is seen as a “right” issue and the “left” have set their position on the opposite camp as pro gay. - This tribalism harms gay people as it has turned the legitimate issue of our rights into a battle between right and left, (good and evil, right and wrong etc) whereas in other countries such as the UK where there is less polarisation of politics, the gay issue is not used as a political football, to be kicked around to win votes by appealing to your tribe.
Comment by NM — January 12, 2008 @ 1:30 pm - January 12, 2008
You have got to be kidding me. I disagree with Sen Clinton on quite a few things but she’s hardly a fascist. More radical rantings. No wonder most Americans are turned off by politics. Anything to avoid a thoughtful discussion of the issues that face our nation. Why bother when you can just believe everyone who disagrees with you is evil incarnate and your side is beyond reproach.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 12, 2008 @ 4:33 pm - January 12, 2008
Another thing, it’s a dirty little secret that in the US in the 1930 most intellectuals and public figures were sympathetic either to fascism or communism. Both of those positions would be embarrassing later but it was only the communist sympathy that got people into trouble with the law after the war was over. (And no I’m not justifying the naivete of Limburgh and others who thought Hitler and Mussolini were doing good things for their countries at the beginning. You would have had to overlook far too much bad that was there from the beginning to make such a claim.) But it is also fair to remember that the depression was a desperate time and for awhile nothing seemed to be working.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 12, 2008 @ 4:36 pm - January 12, 2008
The Islamists aren’t per se fascists. I don’t see any corporatist beliefs there, and they certainly are far more brutal, barbaric and uncivilized than the Black Shirts ever were. Both the Islamists and Fascists are members of the Collectivist hydra, but they aren’t exactly the same. I mean, the Fascists were at least literate…
Comment by Crow — January 12, 2008 @ 6:28 pm - January 12, 2008
Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Islamofascism:
Fully implemented, Islam is a system of government (the Caliphate), marked by centralization of authority under a dictator (the Caliph), stringent socioeconomic controls (Sharia law) , suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship (the system of dhimitude for Non-muslims) , and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism (Jihad) and racism (Islamic supremecy).
Comment by Vince P — January 12, 2008 @ 6:59 pm - January 12, 2008
Check out these videos of an inquest of an CHRC action against a Canadian publisher who published cartoons of Mohemmed.
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=EzraILevant&p=r
bye bye free speech. hello Liberal Fascism
Comment by Vince P — January 12, 2008 @ 7:23 pm - January 12, 2008
Vince, I think your definition of fascism is being used in a circular manner. Although fascist States have historically been under a dictator, it’s debatable whether fascism requires one, and no fascist State has used racism as a center pillar of its system and form of government. If you’re thinking Nazi Germany, that’s a form of socialism, not fascism, although they are both expressions of Collectivism. The underpinning of fascism is corporatism (they mean the same thing), and I don’t see any sort of Western economic thought inherent in Islamism.
Comment by Crow — January 12, 2008 @ 7:25 pm - January 12, 2008
Crow: you’ll have to point me to a published source of the definition you are holding to.
Comment by Vince P — January 12, 2008 @ 7:43 pm - January 12, 2008
“Socialism,” by Ludwig von Mises.
Comment by Crow — January 12, 2008 @ 7:52 pm - January 12, 2008
Houndentenor, you seem to want to avoid the truth. The truth hurts sometimes.
Senator Clinton’s policies are indeed an *AMERICANIZED*, “friendly” form of fascism. That’s why I oppose her. Fascism, at its root, is the totalitarian impulse: the belief that humans must live for the community or State, and (in reflection of that belief) the practice of turning to government as the answer to every problem. That is Senator Clinton and her alleged / so-called “politics of meaning”. “We’re going to make people sacrifice for the greater good”, she says when her guard is down.
Even leaving aside the general totalitarian impulse behind her politics, and going by more formal economic definitions: Economically speaking, fascism is the system where the means of production nominally remain in private hands, but are so regulated by government that they may as well not be. Contrast to socialism, the economic system where the means of production are publicly owned; and to capitalism, the economic system where the means of production remain in private hands ‘for real’ (laissez faire). Contrary to popular belief, America today is not capitalist. America today is a Frankenstein mixture of capitalist, socialist and fascist; and the Democrats always want to take it in the direction of still more government regulation, i.e., the direction of fascism. That is Senator Clinton’s plan for the health care sector, one-seventh of the economy.
Long story short: Jonah Goldberg has a good thesis and you would do well to actually read his book, before dismissing it with so little cause.
An incomplete, therefore misleading claim. The former Hitler / Mussolini / fascist sympathizers in the U.S. - including Joseph P. Kennedy, by the way - were indeed marginalized, and labelled (rightly) as “isolationists”. To the extent that **the law** didn’t go after them: remember that the Soviet Union was a ‘present’ threat, while Hitler / Mussolini / Tojo, by contrast, had just been neutered and removed as a threat - the entire point of WW2.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2008 @ 7:54 pm - January 12, 2008
I was hoping for an URL or the full definition you’re working under.
Comment by Vince P — January 12, 2008 @ 8:03 pm - January 12, 2008
Vince - Crow: Interesting exchange, and highlighting of how much does rest on definitions.
I justify the term “Islamo-fascist” on the grounds that the Islamists are the *Islamic equivalent or analog* to fascism. I.e., they’re the totalitarians of the Islamic world. Further, they are slightly or partly inspired by Hitler; the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had connections to Hitler, and _Mein Kampf_ is reported to be a longstanding best-seller in the Islamic world.
Going by strict economic definitions (as I gave above), it’s more difficult to say if the Islamo-fascists are “fascists” in the Western sense. Some of them believe in private property; just subject to Islamo-government control. That would make them fascists (on the strictly economic definition). Others doubtless prefer socialism.
Interestingly, the allegedly “secular” Baathists of Iraq (Saddam Hussein’s party) were both Islamist and Hitler-inspired ‘national socialists’ at the same time. That makes them “Islamo-fascists”, surely. (And disproves the myth that they couldn’t get along with al Qaeda, which we have seen them doing for the past 5+ years now.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2008 @ 8:03 pm - January 12, 2008
It’s pretty hard to make a characterization about Islamic economies because apparently.. they dont appear to have one.
They get their weath from conquest and jizya… which is why the Islamic Civilization was allledgedly so advanced around 1000.. they were still taking over new people.
When the expansion ended , Islamic lands basically languished until oil was discovered.
Hell these people dont even want to do their own labor..they import MILLIONS of guest workers.
Islam is so different as a culture that you’re not going to get a perfect fit to any western government framework.
Comment by Vince P — January 12, 2008 @ 8:07 pm - January 12, 2008
General guidelines as to what I believe constitutes fascism:
1. A government whose powers are unrestrained.
2. A leader who is a dictator, absolute in power but responsible to the party which is a preferred elite.
3. An economic system in which production and distribution are carried on by private owners but in accordance with plans made by the state directly or under its immediate supervision.
4. These plans involve control of all the instruments of production and distribution through great government bureaus which have the power to make regulations or directives with the force of law.
5. They involve also the comprehensive integration of government and private finances, under which investment is directed and regimented by the government, so that while ownership is private and production is carried on by private owners there is a type of socialization of investment, of the financial aspects of production. By this means the state, which by law and by regulation can exercise a powerful control over industry, can enormously expand and complete that control by assuming the role of banker and partner.
6. They involve also the device of creating streams of purchasing power by federal government borrowing and spending as a permanent institution.
7. As a necessary consequence of all this, militarism becomes an inevitable part of the system since it provides the easiest means of draining great numbers annually from the labor market and of creating a tremendous industry for the production of arms for defense, which industry is supported wholly by government borrowing and spending.
8. Imperialism becomes an essential element of such a system where that is possible — particularly in the strong states, since the whole fascist system, despite its promises of abundance, necessitates great financial and personal sacrifices, which people cannot be induced to make in the interest of the ordinary objectives of civil life and which they will submit to only when they are presented with some national crusade or adventure on the heroic model touching deeply the springs of chauvinistic pride, interest, and feeling.
Source: John T. Flynn, 1944, http://www.mises.org/story/2360
Comment by Crow — January 12, 2008 @ 8:11 pm - January 12, 2008
I used the dictionary definition.
Whether or not it requires one does not impact the question about Islam’s fascist nature. Fascism certainly allows for a dictator.. and Islam calls for a dictator.
You’re correcting a point I never made. I never stated that racism is required. The defintion says “typically”.. . so just like with the dictator.. Fascism allows for racism.. and so Islam is happy to oblige.
Neither do i.. actually i just typed similiar thought before I fully read your comment here.
I don’t see corporatism as being a key requirement for Fascism. So I dont see Islam’s lack of such a thing prohibting the description of Islam to be fascist like.
Comment by Vince P — January 12, 2008 @ 8:19 pm - January 12, 2008
“Fascism allows for racism.. and so Islam is happy to oblige.”
The only political system that doesn’t allow for racism would probably be some sort of New York Times dictatorship.
“I don’t see corporatism as being a key requirement for Fascism. So I dont see Islam’s lack of such a thing prohibting the description of Islam to be fascist like.”
Corporatism *is* fascism, and vice-versa. You’ve also changed from Islam = fascism, to Islam has aspects of fascism within it.
Comment by Crow — January 12, 2008 @ 8:24 pm - January 12, 2008
Corportism is Corportism.
In a Fascist state, commerce serves the purposes of the State.. everything serves the State.
Besides a term like corportism is too ambigious and abstract to be much use in this case IMHO.
Yeah.. when I write blog comments total internal consistancy isn’t a goal of mine.. though i dont see the practical difference between Islam = fascim and islam has aspects of fascism.. they seem equilivent to me.
Comment by Vince P — January 12, 2008 @ 8:34 pm - January 12, 2008
Hence the never ending, slanderous assaults on Bush and lying to the country.
Bush is a terrorist
Bush is Hitler
Bush is a homophobe
Bush hates Jews
Bush hates Muslims
Bush is a warmonger
Bush is a Satanist
Bush is a murderer
Bush is a criminal
Bush is a drunk
Bush is a coke addict
Bush is a theocrat
Bush is a dictator
Bush is a plutocrat
Bush is stupid
Bush is an idiot
Bush can’t read
Etc etc etc.
Meanwhile never once offering any suggestions for any kind of improvement for the country and/or people’s lives. It’s easier to sit on your fat, lazy ass and bitch. At most, some made it to Europe to bitch, but they were going there anyway.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 12, 2008 @ 8:41 pm - January 12, 2008
I’m stunned someone is throwing around the word “fascism” without having any clue as to what corporatism is, and ergo, what fascism is, but here’s a high-level overview on the subject that I found: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/corporatism.htm
Comment by Crow — January 12, 2008 @ 8:52 pm - January 12, 2008
Sigh…
I’ll say it again Corportism is Corportism. Your own link proves my case:
Corporatist Regimes of the Early Twentieth Century
System Name Country Period Leader
National Corporatism Italy 1922-1945 Benito Mussolini
Country, Religion, Monarchy Spain 1923-1930 Miguel Primo de Rivera
National Socialism Germany 1933-1945 Adolph Hitler
National Syndicalism Spain 1936-1973 Francisco Franco
New State Portugal 1932-1968 Antonio Salazar
New State Brazil 1933-1945 Getulio Vargas
New Deal United States 1933-1945 Franklin Roosevelt
Justice Party Argentina 1943-1955 Juan Peron
Corportism exists independently of Fascism.
Obviously this aspect of fascism is very important to you.. it’s not to me.. Islam is sufficiently fascist enough for me to consider it a form of fascism.
Comment by Vince P — January 12, 2008 @ 9:10 pm - January 12, 2008
This video is GGREAT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n3SdV2cwn4
It’s related to my comment 5. A Canadian publisher of the Danish Mohemmed Cartoons has had a complaint issued by radical muslims to a Canadian provincial human rights commission , who have compelled the publisher to appear in a hearing.
In this video he’s telling the State’s Though Police Officer that he doesn’t have to answer to her and he doesn’t care what she thinks about the reasonableness or appropiateness of his publishing of the cartoons.
Comment by Vince P — January 12, 2008 @ 10:14 pm - January 12, 2008
Fascism : American nannie state. When Hillary brags about proposing PRE head start for 100% of Americas children what would you call it? That means the state will be responsible for 4 and 5 year olds for 6 hours each and every day. The government is horrible at most everythng it tries to do. IRS, Katrina, border control, issuing passports, bridge repairs, etc. But lefitsts (neo fascists) want the same govt to be responsible for all of our kids. Do you remember how Hitler’s Germany had children turning in their own parents to the Gestapo, for speaking against the state?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 12, 2008 @ 10:51 pm - January 12, 2008
One of HItler´s admirer in the U.S.A was Joseph Kennedy, Senior. Like father like son, and grandson. Congressman´Joe Kennedy´s commerical for those who need winter fuel, call 800-Joe4you is followed by the Citgo logo. This is the free fuel Chavez is sending around the world while we are being price gouged to pay for it. He´s selling at below market to leftist governments in Latin America. Municipalities in El Salvador that have FMLN mayors are receiving diesel from Chavez via NIcaragua.
Americans who admire dictators are incomprehensible, Sean Penn and others running down to Caracas to kiss Hugo´s fat ass and blame their own country for the problems in the world. There is a link from Caracas to Iran and Russia, All of this should be part of the war on terror. It appears as though our State Department operates with blinders, focusing only on the middle east.
Comment by Roberto — January 13, 2008 @ 10:09 am - January 13, 2008
Vince P: I think we can say that fascism is at least nearly identical to corporatism, like a Ford Escape vs. a Mazda Tribute, and that lacking the economic underpinnings of fascism/corporatism, Islamism cannot be properly understood to be either. Why not just call it what it is, collectivist totalitarianism? The “collectivist” being redundant, of course.
Comment by Crow — January 13, 2008 @ 1:03 pm - January 13, 2008
Call what what it is?
Comment by Vince P — January 13, 2008 @ 1:24 pm - January 13, 2008
Islamism what it is. It’s not fascism. It’s an insult to fascism, really. Islamism is far, far worse.
Comment by Crow — January 13, 2008 @ 1:35 pm - January 13, 2008
Yes, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this tome ignores the basic tenets these regimes used that is the flaw in the logic : Places like Germany after WWI were ripe for leaders like the Nazis due to a large population that was poor and unemployed and with economic systems teetering on the brink. People like Hitler, Mussolini, the Perons, etc. used the guise of socialism to bring these people to their cause, simply to put them in power and as means to their ends.
Sadly, we the same thing today in places like Venezula: Chavez has used the mask of socialism to bring the poor, the uneducated, the disenfranchised to his cause, yet he has clearly set himself up on a path to dictatorial leadership. Also, if socialism leads to fascism, then why haven’t countries like Great Britain and France turned into fascist states? It’s because their socialism is structured to have all things for all citizens in a truly democratic form of government. Regimes like Hitler, Mussolini and Chavez not only portray this idea to their citizens, but they go further and specifically bame a segment of the population for the troubles of the country and go so far as to take their wealth and give it out for free to the people. Or as Eva Peron opined to take away “all the riches of the oligarchs” and give it out free of charge to everyone else.
History has shown that any democracy, given the right circumstances, could fall into fascism. Frankly, looking at the various points that define fascism, it’s the Republicans who have followed more of the tenets of fascism than Democrats - Republicans support of Nationalism, questioning intellectuals, deriding opposition as being traitors, blaming segments of the population for the downfall of the country (gay marriage destroying the family of course is my favorite claim), etc. The one thing that would-be fascists in this country have yet to get on their side is a swell of true unhappiness amongst large segments of the population. Unlike the so-called “socialist” fascist regimes, Republicans have to much of a financial stake in keeping the people of this country happy consumers first and foremost.
Comment by Kevin — January 13, 2008 @ 1:39 pm - January 13, 2008
I normally do. I find the term Islamofascism to be a distraction when not everyone is on the same page.
Comment by Vince P — January 13, 2008 @ 1:42 pm - January 13, 2008
Back when I’d find myself frequently arguing on usenet groups that public schooling was essentially socialist I discovered that no matter how much the “right” was anti-communist and anti-socialist, the “left” was many times more-so. Pointing out the similarities was the most vile crime a person could commit. I wondered why it was so impossible to accept the similarities and own them, to just say “Some socialized functions of government are appropriate” if that’s what they believed.
I plan to order _Liberal Fascism_ today. From Goldberg’s interview on the Glenn and Helen show, he seemed to be saying that fascism was not *conceived* as a bad thing. It was conceived as a good thing. To say that “fascism” is this list of bad stuff, militant, xenophobic, oppression, might be how we use the word (and dictionaries report how we *use* a word) but the fact is that people don’t set out to do that “evil stuff.” They set out to do good things. They set out plans and try to convince people that their plan is the best one for the common good. They probably even believe it.
Goldberg explained that the first use of “Liberal Fascism”… by Wells?.. was meant as a compliment! It was a good thing, or at least reasonably so. (Though it would have been referring to the old definition of liberal, I’m sure.)
But recognizing that the difference between “fascist” and “not fascist” is not the lack of evil intentions is important. It’s not enough to say that, yes, we send people for therapy or training if they have hateful, unacceptable thoughts but that’s okay because we’re trying to make the world a better, less hateful, place.
What made fascism fascism wasn’t *intentions* to do evil crap.
Comment by Synova — January 13, 2008 @ 5:09 pm - January 13, 2008
Look at this crazy law: What I find amusing is the last subsection. This is from Canada
Discrimination Re: Publications, Notices
3(1) - No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) Indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or
(b) Is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, religious beliefs, color, gender, physical disability, mental
disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family
status of that person or class of persons.
(2) - Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.
Comment by Vince P — January 13, 2008 @ 6:57 pm - January 13, 2008
Looks like someone wasn’t smart enough to realize that (1) completely contradicts (2), and when it comes to the State, (1) always prevails.
Comment by Crow — January 13, 2008 @ 7:19 pm - January 13, 2008
I donno. Depending on how a person understands the term “deemed” it could be the equivalent of, oh, “Nothing in this section shall be understood to interfere with free expression of opinion…” Or “We shall create a legal fiction that nothing in this section interferes with free expression of opinion…”
Comment by Synova — January 13, 2008 @ 8:09 pm - January 13, 2008
22: “But lefitsts (neo fascists) want the same govt to be responsible for all of our kids.”
Hmmmmm. “Neo-Fascists.” I like the sound of that. That’s definitely going to be my word-of-the-day and I plan to use it in many sentences. Thanks, Gene!
Comment by Sean A — January 13, 2008 @ 9:28 pm - January 13, 2008
Regimes like Hitler, Mussolini and Chavez not only portray this idea to their citizens, but they go further and specifically bame a segment of the population for the troubles of the country and go so far as to take their wealth and give it out for free to the people. Or as Eva Peron opined to take away “all the riches of the oligarchs” and give it out free of charge to everyone else.
The funny part is that Kevin doesn’t recognize the fact that that’s all the Democrat Party candidates are spewing — blame the rich, take their money, give it to the “poor”.
This is also why the Democrat Party has to scream “recession” at every turn — to make the economy look worse than it is and to convince people that they are poor and helpless when they are not.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 14, 2008 @ 12:38 am - January 14, 2008
#34
I was going to say the same thing. I was going to further inquire if Hillary is the new Evita.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 14, 2008 @ 8:42 am - January 14, 2008
Crow, kudos for airing your definition of fascism at #14 so people can know where you’re coming from.
I see some basic problems with it:
1) It’s a collection of symptoms, not an identification of the essence.
2) The symptoms presented are largely Western, WW2-era entities / factors such as political parties, Keynesian spending, etc. Thus partly obscuring fascism’s long tradition in human affairs.
3) The symptoms would encompass behaviors of legitimate governments, when those are at war legitimately in defense of their people. Thus lending itself to conspiracy thinking. (Hmm… Wild guess… What do you think of Dr. Ron Paul?)
I’ll stick with my definition: Fascism is a species of totalitarianism (the genus), in which (the differentia) private ownership of the means of production is maintained in name, but is so marred by government direction and regulation as to render it useless as a bulwark against that government’s totalitarian encroachments.
And by that definition, the Islamo-fascists are indeed… well… Islamo-fascists. I.e., the Islamic world’s analog / equivalent to the classical Western fascism of your symptom-list. (Plus the fact that some of them really are inspired by Hitler.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2008 @ 9:46 am - January 14, 2008
P.S. And then the fact that communism, fascism, socialism and left-liberalism are all differing manifestations of the totalitarian impulse - the desire to control others - explains why they so often “feel” or “sound” alike.
I just thought of a 2×2 matrix chart one could make. On one side, put Totalitarian, vs. On The Way to Totalitarian. On the other side, put Private Property Abolished, vs. Private Property Maintained in Name. Then fill in the squares:
Private Prop, no | Private Prop, si
————————————————————–
Totalitarian: | Communism | Fascism
On the way: | Socialism | Left-liberalism
The chart probably won’t display well, so here it is in text form:
- Communism: totalitarian; abolish private property
- Fascism: totalitarian; keep a ‘fig leaf’ of private property ownership
- Socialism: on the way to totalitarian; abolish private property
- Left-liberalism: on the way to totalitarian; keep a ‘fig leaf’ of private property ownership.
A plague on all their houses!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2008 @ 10:17 am - January 14, 2008
Give me freedom!
Comment by Vince P — January 14, 2008 @ 12:07 pm - January 14, 2008
The word “fascism” has become a multipurpose slur meant to stir negative emotions. It has been the darling of left as a stinkbomb to toss at the right. When “Islamofascism” came into usage, liberals got all huffy because their word was being hi-jacked by the right. Now, along comes Jonah Goldberg who is putting the word in perspective and there is a battle over the nuances of the meaning.
Frankly, fascism probably can not be defined as it is a system of government that has survived long enough to develop clear characteristics.
Comment by heliotrope — January 14, 2008 @ 1:35 pm - January 14, 2008
ILoveCapitalism: I think very highly of Ron Paul, but my source of what constitutes fascism, Flynn, is from 1944, not 2008. I think Flynn’s definition of fascism precluded self-defense, as militarism is not very compatible with self-defense. I’m partial to “The Onion’s” faux campaign slogan for Ronald Reagan, “Nuke the Bastards.”
Comment by Crow — January 14, 2008 @ 1:40 pm - January 14, 2008
I’ve turned comment #38 into a post at my secret anti-blog intentionally designed to have no readers.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2008 @ 1:54 pm - January 14, 2008
I love being a muse.
Comment by Vince P — January 14, 2008 @ 2:06 pm - January 14, 2008
Because in regards to liberals, you’re not supposed to call a spade a spade. You’re not supposed to be smart enough to recognize what they really stand for and who they really are. When you nail liberals as to what they are and expose their camoflage, they go apeshitspicygonzo.
You just aren’t supposed to pay any attention to the kooks behind the new iron curtain.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 14, 2008 @ 3:14 pm - January 14, 2008
Or it’s all about being defined by motivation.
If you *want* to do good things, then you’re good.
If someone is bad, it must be because they *want* to do bad things.
I was watching some You-Tube… Milton Friedman debates Naomi Kline (I think?) and in one section she’s outright mocking the mere concept of unintended consequences. (They weren’t really debating, she was talking about him and someone interspersed clips of his actual arguments) Milton Friedman, she scoffs, tries to claim that in trying to do good, social programs actually harm people. How stupid can you get! Har Har Har. It’s just so OBVIOUS that you do good by…. ta da!… doing GOOD!
I’m not overstating it. I promise.
When unintended consequences and externalities are concepts taught any FRESHMAN poly-sci student (hey, I only took one year) the idea that someone presenting herself as a serious thinker would scoff at the mere concept that motivation might not determine results is pretty pathetic.
But really, we see it don’t we?
Trying to say that controlling people is fascist, no matter it’s for good reasons and not evil ones violates the notion that motivation drives results and meaning.
Mandatory classes for people who don’t comply to community standards of sensitivity toward gender, race or orientation, aren’t fascist… not because they aren’t mandatory or because they aren’t trying to force people to think in proper ways… but because they are GOOD, because the purpose and motivation for them is GOOD. Because it’s about getting us to treat each other well and it’s about combating hate.
By trying to do good, we do good.
Comment by Synova — January 14, 2008 @ 4:21 pm - January 14, 2008
Sorry Vince, I’d meant my own comment at #37.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2008 @ 4:25 pm - January 14, 2008
Which might explain the “everyone who doesn’t agree with me is evil” meme.
If its all motivation then “wanting to help people” or “wanting to stop wars” is important and anyone who disagrees with helping people or stopping wars must have evil motivation.
And I suppose it would explain why so many people think that Iraq would be better, safer, more peaceful, if we left. It’s because we have good motivation for leaving.
The results would *have* to be good.
Comment by Synova — January 14, 2008 @ 4:28 pm - January 14, 2008
How timely and topical: Yet another article discussing the alliance between Hitler’s Nazis and an earlier generation of Islamists.
Islamo-fascists, I say. Hat tip to Ace.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2008 @ 10:06 pm - January 14, 2008
#47
Oh yeah. I saw a thing on National Pornographic about the history of Hussein and there was a segment about the Islamo-fascists and the Nazis. Weren’t there a regiment or company of Muslim soldiers or something like that?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 15, 2008 @ 3:47 am - January 15, 2008
TGC: The ties are a lot more deeper than that.
As soon as Hitler and his movement started to gain global attention the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was like a total fanboy. The GMJ kept sending letters from 1933 onward basically saying he’d do anything to join up with the NAZIs so that he can assist in their war against the Jews.
The Germans didnt’start to engage back until 1938 or 39.
In collaboration with each other, the following happened (in no particular time order)
The GMJ raised up two SS divisions of Balkan Muslims
The GMJ motivated after much effort the Concentration Camps to start actually killing jews
The GMJ pursuaded Bulgaria (I think) to send it’s prisoner Jews up north to be killed instead of releasing them in exile as was the plan
In Iraq, the GMJ called for allMuslims to revolt against the UK
The GMJ extracted a promise by Hitler that once Europe was conquered, the German Army wold enter the Middle East and into the UK Mandatory Palestine for the purpose of enabling a Jewish Holocaust by Arab hands
Undoubtedly, NAZI Germany got the idea of affixing a Jewish star to the clothes of jews and other dress codes from Islamic rules of the dhimmi.
Persia changed its name from Persia to Iran in order to impress Germany in 1933. Iran means Aryan.
A lot of Muslims thought Hitler was the Mahdi
The GMJ fled to Egypt after 1945 and spread NAZI legacy to the Muslim Brotherhood
The GMJ is Yassir Arafat’s uncle, and I believe Arafat’s movement has always been jihadist disguised in anti-colonialist clothes.
Comment by Vince P — January 15, 2008 @ 4:38 am - January 15, 2008
The first comment in this thread was brilliant. This sort of division and polarization harms our society. The rebranding of Democratic Presidents as closet fascists is without merit. This especially pertains to FDR, who led the greatest generation to liberate a continent (from the fascists, ironically) and heal a nation. Such inflammatory invective is not just anti-Democrat. It’s anti-American.
Comment by Chase — January 16, 2008 @ 1:12 am - January 16, 2008
Once more, Chase descends into babble. I re-read comment #1, and far from it being “brilliant”, it doesn’t even relate to Bruce’s post (which has nothing to do with placing either Hitler or gay issues within the “tribalism of left or right”); nor does it address Goldberg’s point about the shared intellectual heritage of leftism and fascism.
“Liberal fascism” is a reality, not first pointed out by Goldberg, but (I am told) something he does an effective job of demonstrating. I guess some people just want to talk about something else.
Which is itself sheer inflammatory invective. Hypocrisy, anyone? LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2008 @ 3:27 am - January 16, 2008
As for our sidebar on Dr. Ron Paul: This analysis on the Bidinotto Blog sums up my own view, I’m afraid. When it comes to foreign policy, I admire Dr. Paul’s desire to protect U.S. sovereignty, but little else about him. His foreign policy thinking is generally somewhere between “nutty” and “malignant”, verging on anti-American.
claims Paul. Sorry, but it wasn’t.
Separately, Paul’s willingness to accept the support of white supremacists and other fringe types (both today and for decades past) also troubles me. Though I am very much a pro-America libertarian-conservative, I never fell for Paul’s spiel and at this point, I’m obviously not gonna.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2008 @ 2:32 pm - January 16, 2008
P.S. According to Reason magazine, Dr. Paul’s past race-baiting and anti-gay newsletters were ghost-written by his friend and ally Lew Rockwell, despite Rockwell’s public denials.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2008 @ 3:18 pm - January 16, 2008
[...] …. I’m glad this must-read is on its way to me now! -Bruce (GayPatriot) Gay Patriot » #1 Amazon Book: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg Yep, Bruce the Gay Patriot has deemed it worthy to review this ground breaking scholarship even [...]
Pingback by Jonah Goldberg: "Liberal Fascism" - Page 2 - TeakDoor.com - The Thailand Forum — January 25, 2008 @ 8:58 pm - January 25, 2008
For any of you folks on the Thailand Forum (which I just read) who still think that the NAZIs are a right-wing thing I refer to this
NAZIism is a Left-wing ideology. It was mislabeled “right wing” by Stalin but just about anything is to the right of Stalin.
Comment by Vince P — January 26, 2008 @ 1:06 pm - January 26, 2008