Dec
19

Goldberg Ad Astra (Meretricious-And-Happy-New-Year Edition)




Posted at 21:58 by Gavin M.
xlr.jpg

Above: The shoe drops

xlr2.jpg
Above: The shoe bounces a bit, like a bouncy rubber thing

So here, as best we can find it, is the central thesis of Goldberg’s book. He’s attempting to define Progressivism (of the historical, capital ‘p’ variety) as a literal fascist movement, so that everything liberals ever do, have ever done, or may do in the future can be identified with figures such as Mussolini and Hitler.

Meanwhile, conservatism skates free and blameless for the conditions that made Progressivism necessary — as well as for being incomparably worse regarding all the late-19th and early-20th-Century faults and enthusiasms that Jonah mentions here. See, that’s why it was called ‘Progressivism’ in the first place: Because the conservative view at the time was that children ought to be working sixty hours a week in meat-packing plants, and so forth.

In fact, we must stare in awe as Jonah accuses Margaret Sanger of “nasty racism” for her era-appropriate belief in eugenics, even while the back cover of his book, to be published in January 2008, sports a blurb by Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve.

Is there even a word for this? Reading this book is like watching a flaming piano fall out of an airplane and land in a puppy farm.


Update: Out of a near-infinitude of possible footnotes, let me arbitrarily choose the fact that Carl Schmitt is indeed popular among left-academics, just as Jonah says. On the other hand, Schmitt is quite a bit more popular among right-academics, and there’s a certain context to his popularity that’s highly relevant to the topic. But of course, what Jonah typed is strictly true in a literal sense. (Jeez-Louise.)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

525 Comments »

  1. t4toby said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:05

    HOW CAN ANYONE BE SO FUCKING STOOPID???2???222?

    I have nothing sensible to say. Can’t form any other thought. Stoopid oberload.

    I’ve said it before, but:

    How do you guys do it?

  2. Principal Blackman said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:08

    I find this book (and S,N!’s ongoing coverage of it) quite hilarious, but I must admit, part of me is depressed that there will be people out there who will read this page and nod their heads in agreement, saying, “Yes! Exactly!”

  3. Herman Melville said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:09

    The white whale is the Jew of liberal fascism?

    FUCK !!! There goes my whole allegory ….

  4. El Cid said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:10

    I am so, so sorry. I really thought it was being made up when you wrote that “The Holocaust could not have occurred in Italy, because Italians are not Germans.”

    Although I do admire Jo’berg for finally adopting the hard left, radical socialist critique of late 19th century / early 20th century U.S. progressivism for its foreign policy imperialism, it would hardly be accurate to suggest this was somehow a new argument.

    Unfortunately, Joe McCarthy the hard-left communist liberal fascist would have probably noted this as a hard-left communist liberal fascist way of looking at American history.

    The question is, though, did Wilsonian progressivism “turn politics into a religion” while simultaneously trying to do everything to “get beyond politics” in a “holistic” manner? And was it also the French Revolution but just in a different place in a different time with different soil?

    Many “classical liberal” arguments would not know how to answer that question, and yes, that would be my point, what they would not know what to do, and this is central to my point.

  5. dBa said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:10

    Well, at least in that passage the Doh’y One does seem to admit compassionate conservativism is one of the fascisms.

    That’s about as close to the truth as he could get.

  6. anangryoldbroad said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:10

    Yes because heaven fucking forbid anyone engage in any sort of talk of”hope”. Hope is now “secularized language”??? Oh Christ,there’s not enough beer or bong hits to get through this hot mess.

    He’s way too young and pampered to be that cynical and heartless. And way too old to be this damned big of an idiot.

  7. Brando said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:11

    Many liberals don’t view religion and progressivism as diametrically opposed. They believe progressivism and the evangelical crosshumping that has exploded since the Reagan years as being diametrically opposed.

    How does someone get paid a lot of money to take as long as he wants to write about a subject he doesn’t understand. I want that job.

  8. Douglas Watts said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:11

    Doughy Pantload is correct about in saying that any positive mention of Christianity is ridiculed in some self-described Progressive circles.

  9. Legalize said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:12

    Ok, this appears to be an entire page comprised of assertions of fact, yet there are zero footnotes or citations referencing the sources of any of these alleged “facts.” Surely there must be citations to primary materials somewhere in this thing. Right?

  10. Starscream said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:12

    Liberal fascism is like a nice plate of warm, moist cornbread.

    If cornbread were made of fucking stupid.

  11. Slim Tyranny said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:13

    This guy works at the National Review, with this glorious history:

    The magazine supported apartheid South Africa’s white minority rule (4/23/60): ”The whites are entitled, we believe, to preeminence in South Africa.” When Nelson Mandela and other ANC leaders were sentenced to life in prison in South Africa, National Review editors mocked critics of the verdicts (6/30/64): ”The South African courts have sentenced a batch of admitted terrorists to life in the penitentiary, and you would think the court had just finished barbecuing St. Joan, to hear the howls from the liberal press.”

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2487

    Note the barbs aimed at the “liberal press” —- those liberals who “howled” at the injustice of imprisoning Mandela et al.

    But yea, it was the liberals who were the racists.

    Talk about “nasty racism.”

  12. EJ said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:15

    I’m starting to believe that Jonah actually thinks that, while their tendencies to start unprovoked wars, use slave labor, and commit mass murder and genocide were unfortunate, the Nazis’ real evil consisted of raising taxes and promoting vegetarianism and exercise.

  13. actor212 said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:15

    Hm, Prohibition was first proposed by Dr Benjamin Rush, one of the Founding Fathers of the only revolution that Fudgie agrees was conservative…

    The Plamer Raids were conducted against suspected Communists. You know, uber-liberals!

    Eugenics research was funded by the Rockefellers and Carnegies (not precisely bastions of neo-liberal thought at that time) along with the Harrimans (OK, even a broken clock…)

    Loyalty oaths first occured just after the Civil War because, you know, secession and all….by Republicans.

    As for religion and progressivism being diametrically opposed…Martin Luther King, Jr? Jesse Jackson? Woodrow Wilson? Jimmy Carter?

  14. actor212 said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:16

    EJ,

    Are you suggesting that Jonah, like Ahmadinejad, is a Holocaust Denier?

  15. TG Moxley said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:16

    This book is like getting punched in the butt until you die.

  16. Gavin M. said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:17

    Surely there must be citations to primary materials somewhere in this thing. Right?

    Oh yes, that’s a whole other flavor of fun!

  17. tigrismus said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:17

    So progressives were fascists because they were Christians, today’s liberals are fascists because they “roll-back” Christianity(i.e. believe in the separation of church and state)? Progressives were fascists because they were imperialists, today’s liberals are fascist because they aren’t? Then he admits that today’s imperialist Christian conservatives are indeed fascists, thinking we won’t notice because our heads already asplode…

  18. tritonesub said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:18

    An impenetrable fog of deliberate duplicity. He knows he’s phoning in the stupid. This is the kind of stuff that you imagine being written to avoid having to return the advance money. Four poker buddies knocking over a casino.

  19. actor212 said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:18

    Douglas Watts said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:11

    Doughy Pantload is correct about in saying that any positive mention of Christianity is ridiculed in some self-described Progressive circles.

    Just as it is in some self-described conservative circles, specifically the economic royalists, who view Chistians as foot soldiers for extending their plutocracy.

    Progressivism and Liberalism have a long marriage. It’s not unusual for there to be bickering. As a liberal Christian ordained minister, I get my fair share of grief.

    I don’t mind. We’re all working for the same things.

  20. Douglas Watts said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:20

    What is funny is that in Maine and Massachusetts, the key organizers and focal points of both Abolition in the 19th and equal rights for gay people in the 21st century have been churches and churchgoers. Our Unitarian Church in Augusta has had a huge green and white “This is a Discrimination Free Zone” banner roped across its front for the many years it took for Maine to add sexual preference to the state’s anti-discrimination statutes.

  21. Douglas Watts said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:21

    actor212 — well said. thank you.

  22. El Cid said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:22

    Doughy Pantload is correct about in saying that any positive mention of Christianity is ridiculed in some self-described Progressive circles.

    Well, you can hardly blame them.

    According to that same page, any attempt to be both liberal and Christian was Christian fascism, as is any attempt to be both liberal and NOT Christian, as is any attempt to not be racist like some Christians used to be, as is any attempt to not be racist like some secularists used to be.

    If you can’t win, why play the game?

  23. Robert Green said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:22

    i dunno, feels more like watching a barrel of super-cute kittens going over a waterfall of baby harp-seal blood and falling into a mine laden pond filled with dolphins.

  24. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:22

    I can’t wait till y’all hit the end notes, personally.
    There’s further editorializing in them.
    Reading them is like watching a kidnapper cut out the words from magazines for the ransom note.

  25. Trevor said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:23

    Tritonesub: It was either this or a book about a squirrel that may or may not actually have been written by his wife while he was trying to take out the mailman.

  26. liberace said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:26

    Reading this book is like watching a flaming piano fall out of an airplane and land in a puppy farm.

    Oh gracious heavens! Not a piano!

  27. tritonesub said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:27

    Trevor,
    Thanks for recognizing!
    Ah Crum Petrie, we hardly knew ye…

  28. keith emerson said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:27

    Reading this book is like watching a flaming piano fall out of an airplane and land in a puppy farm.

    Wow. Why didn’t I think of that!

  29. lassie said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:27

    Reading this book is like watching a flaming piano fall out of an airplane and land in a puppy farm.

    Ruff!

  30. jnfr said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:29

    Italians are not Germans

    That’s deep, man. Heavy.

    At least he admits we were the ones wanting to clean up pollution and end child labor, though he avoids the obvious corollary.

  31. jimmiraybob said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:30

    Douglas Watts said,
    December 19, 2007 at 22:11

    Doughy Pantload is correct about in saying that any positive mention of Christianity is ridiculed in some self-described Progressive circles.

    Why are you & Doughbob trying to silence free expression?

  32. tigrismus said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:30

    It was either this or a book about a squirrel that may or may not actually have been written by his wife while he was trying to take out the mailman.

    Boy did he make the wrong choice; you always pick the squiggles for the win.

  33. Douglas Watts said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:33

    A key reason a Christian like myself prefers to use “secularized words like ‘hope’” is because certain other … cough cough … folks have so poisoned the Christian well with racism and hatred for the past 2,000 years that I don’t even bother anymore. Jonah is just another duplicitous fuck pissing on Christ’s message and calling his urine Holy Water.

  34. Gundamhead said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:34

    Man, pace yourselves! I’m O.D.ing on dough here. C’mon, slow down a little! I know this book is chocked full of unbelievable stupidity. I understand why you all are so eager. But I’m starting to get a little burned out on Pantload. There’s enough material in this thing to last for months, and there’s plenty of other stupid ass holes who deserve scorn to. No need to over do it.

  35. Tim (the other one) said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:35

    “i dunno, feels more like watching a barrel of super-cute kittens going over a waterfall of baby harp-seal blood and falling into a mine laden pond filled with dolphins.”

    OK; that rocked my world !

  36. commie atheist said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:35

    Take a look at the last full paragraph on that page. From the context, it appears to be implying that the Civil Rights movement was a fascist movement. Am I wrong?

  37. WereBear said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:37

    I cite this work, and his well known struggles with completing it, as support for my thesis that:

    It’s hard work being this stupid…

    and

    The fact that it’s hard makes them think they have actually thought.

  38. Blue Buddha said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:38

    anangryoldbroad said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:10

    Yes because heaven fucking forbid anyone engage in any sort of talk of”hope”. Hope is now “secularized language”??? Oh Christ,there’s not enough beer or bong hits to get through this hot mess.

    Romans 8:24-25 –

    For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

    Ecclesiastes 9 –

    For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

    Proverbs 13:12 –

    13:12 Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life.

    Yep… that’s some secular language right there! Tell you what…

  39. El Cid said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:39

    Take a look at the last full paragraph on that page. From the context, it appears to be implying that the Civil Rights movement was a fascist movement. Am I wrong?

    Well, perhaps. But mostly it suggests to me that the good part of the Civil Rights movement was that they talked about the Christian religion, while the fascist part meddled in our public affairs trying to make the country a better place, which is totalitarian, when you try to “turn politics into a religion,” or you use a “holistic” view of change, and you try to “justify” changing the country by saying you intend to make life better for “the people”.

  40. RodeoBob said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:40

    They were the authors of Prohibition, the Palmer Raids, eugenics, loyalty oaths, and, in its modern incarnation, what many call “state capitalism”

    Yeah…

    See, in a grown-up, big-people book (that doesn’t pop-up or have tabs to pull) after each of the words “prohibition”, “Palmer Raids”, “eugenics”, and “loyalty oaths”, there would be this thing called a footnote or an endnote, where readers could find out the source of these claims.

    Of course, in a grown-up book, when a paragraph ends with undefined term bracketed with scare quotes (“state capitalism”), you would expect to see said term defined in the following paragraph. Or perhaps somewhere on the same page. Or in the same book.

    Oh, and I though the old Faux-News dodge of “some people say” or “many call it” was so 2003.

  41. Douglas Watts said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:40

    Take a look at the last full paragraph on that page. From the context, it appears to be implying that the Civil Rights movement was a fascist movement. Am I wrong?

    No. You are not wrong. As discussed here earlier, this entire tome is a not-well-disguised apologia for the Klan and Aryan Supremacists.

  42. Josh R. said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:46

    I think you guys are missing the point. Goldberg is calling out the President for being a fascist. How? Here’s how:

    Look at that first paragraph. He says that fascists are united by the totalitarian temptation, the utopian belief that they can “create a better world.”

    [For the moment, ignore the fact that utopian generally refers to perfect or ideal worlds, rather than merely better and that Jonah apparently doesn't know this. Also ignore the fact the implications that this argument has for moral progress--apparently we live in a better world due to fate and nothing any individual has ever done since moving to a better world through conscious action is a utopian (i.e. in this context impossible) move. In fact, overlook the fact that this may make Goldberg a disbeliever in any type of moral progress at all. Let's move on.]

    So, think about this: what is one of the reasons why American troops are dying in Iraq? Why, it’s to bring democracy and freedom, God’s gift to humanity, to the Iraqi people and, by so doing, light a spark in the Muslim world that will lead to increased democratization and through that a cessation to hostility between the West and the Muslim world. In other words, it’s animated by the belief that the United States can “create a better world.”

    In other words, by Jonah’s own argument, it is clear that President Bush and his coterie of supporters have fallen for the totalitarian temptation and can be justly called fascists.

  43. Lautremont said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:46

    It’s as beautiful as the chance meeting on a dissecting table of a sewing machine and a smug, spoiled, narcissistic little right-wing toad.

  44. Saul said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:48

    The bottom line is, liberals are nannystate facsists because they support big government, high taxes and regulations of private business. They also have a “robin hood” mentality of stealing from the rich to give to the poor using the welfare nanny state. All real hard working Patriotic Americans such as those of us in the Heartland know that the poor doesn’t deserve to be given or hard earned tax dollars because the only reason people are poor in a Great Nation like America is because they are lazy and don’t want to work, therefore because of their idleness they deserve to be poor.

  45. HumboldtBlue said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:48

    See folks, if you guys had just listened to the likes of Strom Thurmond we wouldn’t be having these problems we have today.

  46. Todd said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:48

    Every time you post one of these excerpts, that old Dr. Pepper jingle pops into my head:

    I’m a fascist,
    He’s a fascist,
    She’s a fascist,
    We’re a fascist,
    Wouldn’t you like to be a fascist too.

    David Naughton is a fascist.

  47. stryx said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:50

    It’s true this book is best present ever for the SadlyNation, but holy flaming christ on a unicycle! How does Doubleday do something like this? There’s a whole chain of custody that preceded the release of this steaming pile, and yet statements like “liberals were the authors of the Palmer raids” still got published. The Palmer raids that “authorized stiff fines and prison terms of up to 20 years for anyone who obstructed the military draft or encouraged “disloyalty” against the U.S. government”?

    How the fuck did this shit get published? The logic of the arguments are baffling and non-sensical but fuck fuck fuckity fuck, couldn’t someone along the way say something? “Um, maybe this objectively wrong statement should be changed to make it, you know, um, true?”

    Make fun of the tofu people, fine. But blame Emma for one of the most depressing episodes in American history? Fuck you, Pantload.

    This whole thing is making me nauseous.

  48. tb said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:51

    Utopia: ideal and perfect state: an ideal and perfect place or state where everyone lives in harmony and everything is for the best.

    Perfect, ideal, best. Not “better”. Would someone buy young bubblebutt a fuckin’ dictionary, please? Shit.

  49. D.N. Nation said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:51

    D’oh!boy:

    But liberals often forget the Progressives were also imperialists…

    1) YOU, Jonah Goldberg, YOU of the “Yes indeedy, let’s go beat the snot out of smaller countries just cuz,” YOU, YOU YOU YOU are an imperialist. So. What. Is. Your. Point?

    2) Progressives then =/= Progressives now. I know that “we’re the party of Lincoln”/”1960s racists were DEMOCRATS!” thinking has warped conservatives’ minds, but party shuffles have always exis…

    You know what, screw it. Goldberg has this conclusion so protected by feet and feet of chubby unused greymatter that I’ll never be able to get through the sludge. So in a sense, this man is utterly brilliant- so thorough in his wrongness that it’d take a Sisyphean ordeal to get through it all. And so we sit like all those skeletons at the base of wherever they’re holding the Holy Grail.

  50. MTS said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:52

    Douglas Watts said,
    December 19, 2007 at 22:11

    Doughy Pantload is correct about in saying that any positive mention of Christianity is ridiculed in some self-described Progressive circles.

    Could you cite some examples of this? I spend much of each year in Ithaca, NY, one of the most liberal towns in the universe. There is both an Ivy League university and a small, private liberal arts college that started as a music conservatory. I’m as lefty as they come and even I find the political attitudes a little conformist at times. My wife teaches in Ithaca and I teach at a public university in another state. I have never observed this phenomenon you speak of, here or in any of the college towns where I have studied and worked (and my time in college towns is now over half my life).

    Many of the most liberal people we know in both towns are in fact religious and regular church-goers. I will admit it’s a smaller percentage than you would find in the non-professorial population, but not going to church isn’t exactly the same thing as ridiculing Christianity. Being some of the best-educated people you will find anywhere, even the anti-religious academics (like me) are well aware of the positive contributions of religious people and institutions (great art, architecture and music; hospitals and universities, charities, etc.). I might argue that the bad outweighs the good over the course of time, but I don’t deny the good, and I don’t personally know anyone that does. I’m not saying I disbelieve you, exactly, but it just doesn’t jibe with my experiences in “self-described Progressives cirlces,” which is where I’ve spent most of my life.

  51. Righteous Bubba said,

    December 19, 2007 at 22:54

    But are Italians French? If they turn out to be French his whole thesis may collapse. I demand an answer!

  52. gbear said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:00

    there will be people out there who will read this page and nod their heads in agreement, saying, “Yes! Exactly!”

    But they won’t really quite know exactly what they are agreeing with. It’s so hard to tell. Can you actually turn the ‘thoughts’ in this book into actions?

  53. Marion in Savannah said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:01

    “Reading this book is like watching a flaming piano fall out of an airplane and land in a puppy farm.”

    There. The New York Times review is done.

  54. Gavin M. said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:01

    [added more text, btw]

  55. Saul said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:02

    Liberal=big government.

    facsist=big government.

    liberal=facsist.

  56. Dave said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:02

    Does anyone else find it interesting that he has basically called Theodore Roosevelt, an icon of the Republican Party, a Christian Fascist?

  57. Jemand von Niemand said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:02

    Progressive movements were based in religion? Does Jonah even know about the Enlightenment? The English Labor movement? European Socalism? Or did he sleep through the Western Civ 102 section that covered the Reformation through 1856?

    Simple histories for simplistic minds.

  58. jeff said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:04

    Italians aren’t Germans, but many Swiss are Italians and many Swiss are Germans. Also, many Swiss are Franks. Switzerland is fascist, but not Italy, because Mussolini pushed for an arrangement with the Pope, while women didn’t get the vote in Switzerland until the 1980s–proving their totalitarian liberalism. (Italians are the new Swiss.)

  59. Saul said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:06

    homosexual = pedophile.

  60. jeff said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:07

    See Saul, problem is that you’re incorrect. Nobody thinks the definition of Fascism is big government, or else you’d claim Bush to be the most fascistic President ever. But, you don’t, do you?

  61. Dave said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:07

    Also, how does Chunk reconcile the fact that the KKK were supporters of Prohibition? Doesn’t that contradict his earlier statement? Or that Democrats and Republicans alike supported Prohibition, and that it wasn’t a progressive movement as much as it was a religious movement?

    One fact, Jonah! Just give us one real fact!

  62. Legalize said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:08

    I wish S, N! trolls would earn how to spell “fascist.” Oh right, accuracy and competence are fascist.

  63. jeff said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:08

    Again Saul: words don’t mean just any old damn thing. “Homosexual” does not, in fact, mean “pedophile.”

  64. Saul said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:09

    Is this how you spell fascist?

  65. Jake H. said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:09

    Liberal=big government.

    facsist=big government.

    liberal=facsist.

    Stop showing Jonah up! It took him like 5 years and 400 pages to come up with that! Though he did know how to spell fascist.

    Progressive movements were based in religion? Does Jonah even know about the Enlightenment? The English Labor movement? European Socalism? Or did he sleep through the Western Civ 102 section that covered the Reformation through 1856?

    Fascists, fascists, fascists, fascists. You’re a fascist for asking. Fascist.

  66. tb said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:10

    In general Johaha seems to be about 20 years out of date with his liberal bogeymen- he still wants to be fighting the Ward Churchills of the late ’80′s- permantly guilt-stricken whites who read Andrea Dworkin, use words like “logocentrism”, and believe that all hetero sex is rape.

  67. Saul said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:10

    I’m not a good speller guys, I’ll be the first to admit it.

  68. El Cid said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:11

    Hmm.

    Progressives did many things that we would today call objectively fascist, and fascists did many things we would today call objectively progressive. Teasing apart this contradiction, and showing why it is not, in fact, a contradiction, are major aims of this book.

    So, among the two major aims of this book are (1) teasing apart the contradiction that fascists did progressive things and progressives did fascist things, and (2) demonstrating that there was not really a contradiction between fascists doing progressive things and progressives doing fascist things.

    Also, did fascists do “many things” we would today call “objectively” conservative? Did conservatives ever do things we would today call “objectively” progressive? Did progressives ever do things we would today call “objectively” conservative?

    Also, did anyone ever study stuff before? I wonder if anyone ever before now wrote like a book or something about how and what the Nazis did and like, how maybe it happened, and what they did, and like, how strange it was, and that Germany way back then had some progressive stuff, and there was, like, business and wars and stuff, or something?

    I would be really amazed if this were really the first book ever that tried to make words on paper about these people called fascists and where they came from and what they did and why some people liked them, and stuff.

    Is it? Is this the first book about the Nazis and stuff? That is really strange because there were a lot of people in World War II and I would have thought some people might be curious and write some stuff about it or something. But maybe not. Certainly never did any one write about this stuff with such care or in such detail.

  69. MzNicky said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:12

    I feel ill. This isn’t even unintentionally funny anymore.

  70. Robert M. said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:12

    It occurs to me that the Magnum Doughpus could have been an interesting book in someone else’s hands (say, Dave Neiwert). A serious historical examination of totalitarianism–one which thoroughly developed a definition of the phenomenon, and then explored how different national governments and political movements fit the totalitarian model–would be kind of cool.

    I’d like to see someone talk about how Prohibition was an attempt to use the power of the state to make people better, whether they liked it or not. I’d like to have a literary conversation about Russian dictatorship from the Romanovs to Putin, and how it compared to Argentina under Pinochet. Jonah has the kernel of an idea that might have been an interesting thesis… and I’m kind of disappointed that it was developed into such a steaming load.

    Let me clarify, though–I’m not surprised in any way. Just disappointed and slightly revolted.

  71. Saul said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:13

    Islamo-fascist, thats how you spell thanks guys, I can show a little humility if need be, I am after all a Rabbi a man of God.

  72. jnfr said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:14

    In other words, by Jonah’s own argument, it is clear that President Bush and his coterie of supporters have fallen for the totalitarian temptation and can be justly called fascists.

    Plus, Bush jogs. Fascist.

  73. tb said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:14

    Jogofascist.

  74. El Cid said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:16

    Italians aren’t Germans, but many Swiss are Italians and many Swiss are Germans. Also, many Swiss are Franks.

    You are so lying. You are trying to say impossible things. They could not both be Swiss and also be Italians and also Germans. They have to make up their mind because they cannot be many things at once.

    This is a contradiction. Although, and, it is a major aim of this comment to demonstrate that this is not a contradiction, and to do the two things are not “classic contradictionism”, but it is part of my point, which is, we must ask ourselves what we mean, and this is central to my point.

  75. Dave said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:16

    I think the real question in all of this is why Doubleday agreed to publish this crap. This is a Regnery Publishing book if ever there was one.

  76. Jake H. said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:16

    Jonah has the kernel of an idea that might have been an interesting thesis… and I’m kind of disappointed that it was developed into such a steaming load.

    No he didn’t. You’re projecting your own ideas on to him. He set out to conflate every negative development in history with the word “left,” because he’s incapable of a nuanced understanding of history that might admit that somewhere at some point a non-liberal did a nasty thing.

  77. Lesley said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:18

    compassionate conservatism making inroads
    example, example, example, example, example, example, example

  78. Arky - Fascitanata said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:18

    Why the hell does he keep talking about “What liberals don’t know/understand/realize”? The book is clearly written for the White Non-Jewish Males who are now the Jews of the Liberal Fascists.* So I understand that he is explaining (apologizing for, really) the behavior of the LibroFascists to the Victimized Brotherhood. But by saying “They don’t know what they’re doing,” he creates an excuse for every fascist movement that has ever existed: “Hey, don’t blame us, we didn’t know we were being fascists!”

    He might as well have called it The Accidental Fascist, but that wouldn’t be a zingy and he might have been forced to shell out more for the cover art.

    *Unless They are Christian White Males in Which Case the Contrarywise Applies.

  79. tigrismus said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:19

    he still wants to be fighting the Ward Churchills of the late ’80’s- permantly guilt-stricken whites who read Andrea Dworkin, use words like “logocentrism”, and believe that all hetero sex is rape.

    So there really are one or two people like he describes, it’s not all straw liberals? Zounds.

  80. Oscar Mayer said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:19

    The Franks are wieners.

  81. Jake H. said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:19

    Islamo-fascist, thats how you spell thanks guys, I can show a little humility if need be, I am after all a Rabbi a man of God.

    Hey, I heard you guys were the us of classical fascism! That must have sucked. I hope the Nazis didn’t, like, open organic supermarkets near you or anything horrible like that.

    Your spelling difficulties aren’t your fault anyway. It was your Swarthofascist-educated grade school teacher who failed you.

  82. thelogos said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:20

    I get it now. Doughy Pantload is trying to out-satire Mr. Swift. We’ve all been duped and he’s published this “book” to see just how far down the rabbit hole his satire can go.

    Bra-vo, Mr. Pantload. Bra-vo.

  83. pedestrian said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:22

    Still, it should be noted that on the postmodern left, they do speak in terms Nazis could understand

    Assuming that they happened to speak English.
    ZOMG! I have a friend who speaks fluent Arabic, meaning he can…speak…in…terms…that…the…*gulp* terrorists can understand! But wait, he’s a white male… someone do the math for me, I have no head fo Goldbergia.

    PS: I had to go back and correct the above quote several times because I had inadvertently fixed some of his grammar errors. It is actually hard to write that badly!

    Jonah adds:
    LOOK MA, NO HANDS!!!

  84. tony said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:23

    None of the tripe in this “book” would even get a passing grade if it was submitted in a freshman class at any accredited college, anywhere. Yet he gets published under a Doubleday imprint?

    I am literally sick after spending most of today reading through this stuff. I can’t even laugh it off anymore. Some of us work our whole lives to build a writing career, and yet Lucianne’s thigh-drippings get to phone it in with no skills or effort whatsoever.

    (why yes, these grapes *are* quite sour. Thanks for asking.)

  85. stryx said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:23

    elCid, you stopped short. The next sentence he states that he’s not calling liberals Nazis. He’s just calling Nazis liberals, thus liberals are Nazis.

    Was there no one in his life who scanned the proofs and pointed out how profoundly fucking insulting this fetid pile is?

    Really, I think I’m going to throw up.

  86. g said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:24

    As for religion and progressivism being diametrically opposed

    Jonah’s knowledge of history goes back about as far as his attention span.

    Never mind about the religious roots of Abolition and Prohibition – he seems to have missed the whole Liberation Theology thing entirely.

    And of course that was in the 1980′s when a teen Jonah would have been just adopting his conservatism by overhearing dinner table conversation at home.

  87. phantom Princeton liberal thug said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:26

    I could wear a T-shirt that says “Liberal Fascist” on it and like punch this Doughy guy repeatedly in the face for you. Then when he whines and cries about it afterward everyone will just think he did it to himself.

  88. g said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:27

    The bottom line is, liberals are nannystate facsists because they support big government, high taxes and regulations of private business. They also have a “robin hood” mentality of stealing from the rich to give to the poor using the welfare nanny state. All real hard working Patriotic Americans such as those of us in the Heartland know that the poor doesn’t deserve to be given or hard earned tax dollars because the only reason people are poor in a Great Nation like America is because they are lazy and don’t want to work, therefore because of their idleness they deserve to be poor.

    See, I’m beginning to think better of Saul, here, because here he so concisely summarizes Jonah’s exact point here, far more economically and elegantly than Jonah could possibly do. Bravo, Saul! Regnery needs to get you an advance!

  89. tb said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:28

    Also, many Swiss are Franks.

    And the Viennese sausages.

  90. El Cid said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:29

    The next sentence he states that he’s not calling liberals Nazis. He’s just calling Nazis liberals, thus liberals are Nazis.

    Yes, but this is a contradiction. He is not calling liberals Nazis, but he is saying that liberals come from progressives and progressives were fascist, so it is obviously not him who is calling liberals Nazis.

    Therefore it must be someone else, such as yourself, because you are the one who is talking in your own head to yourself when you read these words, and it is not his fault if you read his sentences and then later on words are talking in your head and they tell you (in your head) that he is saying that liberals are progressives are fascists are Nazis, because Jonah Goldberg was not in your head and did not say those things to you.

    My major aim for this comment was to make this contradiction the central point of my point, although there really is no contradiction as some might see it.

  91. J— said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:29

    You know, if Goldberg is serious about seeking his right-wing, “classical liberal” utopia, a place where the economy is integrated into the world capitalist system, where the nation-state’s role in regulating the market and directing economic activity is minimal, and where the scant power it does exercise is treated with widespread distrust and disregard, I suggest he try Honduras or a favela in Rio. We’ll see how long he lasts.

    Note: This is in no way a slight to the people of Honduras or the residents of favelas. They, like Dilsey and her family, endure.

  92. Nim, ham hock of liberty said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:30

    Okay, really what this all boils down to is Jonah saying, “If I define up as down, then UP = DOWN. zomg! Did I just blow your minds?!?! Who’s the clever one NOW HMMM??”

    Right?

  93. Righteous Bubba said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:31

    I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

  94. Galactic Dustbin said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:31

    So was the Confederacy liberal or conservative according to Pantload?

  95. The Walrus said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:34

    Righteous Bubba:
    You think this is bad? You should have seen him kicking Edgar Allen Poe.

  96. Galactic Dustbin said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:35

    You know, if Goldberg is serious about seeking his right-wing, “classical liberal” utopia, a place where the economy is integrated into the world capitalist system, where the nation-state’s role in regulating the market and directing economic activity is minimal, and where the scant power it does exercise is treated with widespread distrust and disregard, I suggest he try Honduras or a favela in Rio. We’ll see how long he lasts.

    I dare Goldberg to survive in ANY economic system, as long as he dosent use nepotism. His mom is the only thing saving him from asking if you want fries with that.

  97. Fozzetti said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:36

    what did the fascists do that was good? We…ll: The Italians (some say) made trains run on time, and the Germans invented the Volkswagon. Funny that one never sees volkswagons in WWII moves about Prison Camp Escapees.

  98. Jake H. said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:36

    You know, if Goldberg is serious about seeking his right-wing, “classical liberal” utopia, a place where the economy is integrated into the world capitalist system, where the nation-state’s role in regulating the market and directing economic activity is minimal, and where the scant power it does exercise is treated with widespread distrust and disregard…

    Except for when the government is “picking up some crappy little country and throwing it against the wall” for literally no reason, or wiretapping, torturing and holding without habeas corpus anyone who interferes with its right to do so. Other than that, totally limited government.

  99. Nim, ham hock of liberty said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:37

    I dare Goldberg to survive in ANY economic system, as long as he dosent use nepotism. His mom is the only thing saving him from asking if you want fries with that.

    To be fair, please consider the possibility that he is one of the brightest conservative minds and one of the best conservative writers, and that he was hired by the National Review because he was the most qualified applicant for the job.

  100. BJS said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:38

    What about Billy Bragg? He’s been telling me the fascists are going to lose. I thought he was the Milkman of Human Kindness. Now DoughJo is telling me he’s a fascist too??? I’m lost.

  101. pedestrian said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:40

    Italians aren’t Germans,

    Sure they are.

    In the opposite sense, Italians were also Germans.

  102. Fats Durston said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:40

    More head asplodey.

    What I don’t get is that conservative “pundits” again and again attack secularists/atheists by claiming that some central aspect of the secular belief system is a “faith” or they “divinized” or “religified” politics. I suppose they (the conservatives) are just trying to say “nanny-nanny-boo-boo, you liberals/atheists/secularists are such hypocrites relying on faith when you claim to be all non-faithy.” But the subtext of this claim is that faith or spirituality or religiousity is an idiotic way of looking at the world, which in turn suggests that the conservatives are calling their own ideologies moronic (“the only real utopia, awaits us in the next life”).

  103. Arky - Fascitanata said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:41

    Was there no one in his life who scanned the proofs and pointed out how profoundly fucking insulting this fetid pile is?

    Yes, considering how long it took him to squeeze this chunk out, I’m sure a lot of the delay was caused by multiple re-writes to make it worse. That’s the whole point of the exercise.

    Oh wait, not exercise, that’s for fatcysts. But anyway, Blonah didn’t write this book to show off his understanding of history, or sociology or research or … anything. He didn’t write the book to stand up to analysis. You could say he didn’t write the book to be read.

    People might buy it because all the other cool kids have one and a few book reviewers will be forced to choke it down but for the most part I suspect this book will be used most by Blagghers and Rush Limpbag wannabes who’ll use exerpts to support whatever they’re gibbering about, because it’s a book and books are an official and authoritative like.

    If he’s lucky he’ll get an invite to The Daily Show or Colbert Report.

  104. Fozzetti said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:42

    Dave: I think Regenery refused this book. Doubleday took it for a tax write off after it bombs. After all, not a lot of us liberals will buy it, and it is WAY too long for the average neocon. 400+ pages! More than 187 pages is too long. And not weird-looking blond on the cover, either . (BTW: on Coulter’s books they should just use a broomstick with a blond wig. It would make more sense, and be more attractive).

  105. Righteous Bubba said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:46

    The first appearance of the word Dekonstruktion

    Would one of those sharp types who actually understands deconstruction let me know if this is an exploding poo-ball of irony? Thanks.

  106. James said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:46

    Abolitionists were fascists!?! Sorry, forgot something… ABOLITIONISTS WERE FASCISTS!?! That honestly blew my mind. Seriously, I think that was the tipping point for me in the supposed clash of blue and red… I think I need a beer and a laydown.

  107. stryx said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:50

    Carl Schmitt, hugely popular among leftist academics sez the Load.

    Anyone know what the fuck he’s talking about? Seeing how we “tacitly endorse” either the academics or Schmitt, I not sure.

  108. Element 5 said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:54

    Jonah………you are the Cheetos beneath my wings.

    (sigh).

  109. Bullsmith said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:54

    Man this book is like Christmas come early. I will happily, painfully, self-destructively read each and every little snippet posted here at Sadly No! even at the expense of my family and vacation time. It seems the only honorably liberal fascist thing to do.

    Please keep going. Ignore the blood oozing out from under my eyeballs. They are merely more deeply felt tears of joy. This book is like a Guiness Record compilation of world-record stupidities. And so far it appears we have come no farther than page 15.

    The horror. The humor. The horror.

  110. Jim said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:58

    I’m not a good speller guys, I’ll be the first to admit it.

    What a perfectly fascist thing to say.

  111. Five of Diamonds said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:00

    For a guy trying to pin fascism on his political opponents, this reads oddly like Mein Kampf.

  112. Gavin M. said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:02

    Carl Schmitt, hugely popular among leftist academics sez the Load.

    [added an update]

  113. slip mahoney said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:06

    Where would liberals get the idea that religion and progressivism could ever be diametrically opposed to each other?

    “I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: “Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother.” In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely otherworldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.”

    MLK, Letter From a Birmingham Jail

  114. pedestrian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:08

    A Fascist Philosopher Helps Us Understand Contemporary Politics
    By ALAN WOLFE

    To understand what is distinctive about today’s Republican Party, you first need to know about an obscure and very conservative German political philosopher. His name, however, is not Leo Strauss, who has been widely cited as the intellectual guru of the Bush administration. It belongs, instead, to a lesser known, but in many ways more important,…

    To continue reading this premium article, you must have a Chronicle account AND a subscription or an online pass.

    Subscriptions start at $40; Web passes for under $10.

    [whimper]

  115. SamFromUtah said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:08

    Oh, and I though the old Faux-News dodge of “some people say” or “many call it” was so 2003.

    You’re right, but remember this turd of a book was grunting its way through the Pantload’s colon even then.

  116. Righteous Bubba said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:10

    Same article.

  117. actor212 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:11

    I would not dream of saying that today’s liberals are genocidal or vicious in their racial attitudes the way the Nazis were

    …but now that YOU mentioned it!

  118. actor212 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:12

    Nazi efforts to “de-Judaize” German society

    The forerunner to the American Fascist Party’s attempt to rid America of “teh gay”.

  119. pedestrian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:13

    Thanks Bubba! You are fine upstanding fascist if there ever was one.

  120. actor212 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:13

    I’m thinking somewhere along the lines of his formative years, Fudgie never got the shiny red bicycle he asked Santy Claus for.

  121. actor212 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:15

    Jim said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:58

    What a perfectly fascist thing to say.

    Do you like? It’s the “in” thing…I hear all the parties on New Year’s Eve are having fascist DJs.

  122. Gus said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:19

    D.N. Nation, don’t be surprised if you show up on the dust jacket of the paper back with the review:
    “Utterly brilliant- so thorough…”

  123. Righteous Bubba said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:19

    You are fine upstanding fascist if there ever was one.

    My current dilemma as a new Jew is whether or not I should be trusted to shower myself.

  124. Gavin M. said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:20

    Thanks for the Alan Wolfe/Schmitt link!

  125. El Cid said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:22

    Yeah but when the not-conservatives talk about Carl Schmitt they are the fascists and when the conservatives talk about Carl Schmitt they are the NOT the fascists, you think this is a contradiction but it is not, it is different in a way which is my central point.

  126. FlipYrWhig said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:24

    What about Billy Bragg? He’s been telling me the fascists are going to lose. I thought he was the Milkman of Human Kindness. Now DoughJo is telling me he’s a fascist too??? I’m lost.

    He’s the Milkman of Human Kindness, and he will leave an extra pint, whether you bloody well like it or not, because it’s good for you, ya right wanker. That’s the way Billy Bragg and the rest of his cadres of socialist milkofascists are.

  127. justbrent said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:25

    I think that we are ignoring the obvious question here. OK, there are a LOT of obvious questions being ignored, but there is one really big one.

    What, exactly, does it take to NOT be a fascist? As best I can tell you must be against making life better, improving public health, promoting equality, furthering education, and improving public discourse.

    Stated positively, a non-fascist is in favor or wide-spread misery, illness, injustice, ignorance, and ideological persecution. Who fits that description? Who would want to fit that description?

  128. FlipYrWhig said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:25

    I hear all the parties on New Year’s Eve are having fascist DJs.

    Jonah Goldberg don’t need your fascist groove thing.

  129. Jim said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:25

    Hermann Göring’s cousin dated a fascist once.

    It was fabulous.

  130. Jim said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:26

    Also, all of the puppies on that farm were fascists. They wanted free milk from their mom, like some sort of nanny state.

  131. Element 5 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:27

    My current dilemma as a new Jew is whether or not I should be trusted to shower myself.

    Oh shit…..I hadn’t thought of that!! (smacks forehead).

  132. SamFromUtah said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:28

    My current dilemma as a new Jew is whether or not I should be trusted to shower myself.

    LOLz!~

    And here I was still worrying about my bris. No way am I going to get Saul to do it – you can tell by his typing he has really shaky hands.

  133. El Cid said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:29

    If you had a state (maybe a small one) populated entirely by people who worked as nannies, would this be a nanny-state?

    And would they also be fascist?

  134. porndog said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:29

    Has anyone posted these lyrics yet?

    Seem rather appropriate.

    The Continuing Story Of Bungalow Bill
    The Beatles

    Hey, Bungalow Bill
    what did you kill
    Bungalow Bill?

    Hey, Bungalow Bill
    what did you kill
    Bungalow Bill?

    He went out hunting with his elephant and gun
    in case of accidents he always took his mom
    he’s the all-American bullet-headed saxon mother’s son

    All the children sing
    Hey, Bungalow Bill
    what did you kill
    Bungalow Bill?

    Hey, Bungalow Bill
    what did you kill
    Bungalow Bill?

    Deep in the jungle where the mightly tiger lies
    Bill and his elephants were taken by surprise
    So Captain Marvel zapped him right between the eyes

    All the children sing
    Hey, Bungalow Bill
    what did you kill
    Bungalow Bill?

    Hey, Bungalow Bill
    what did you kill
    Bungalow Bill?

    The children asked him if to kill was not a sin
    “Not when he looked so fierce”, his mommy butted in
    “If looks could kill, it would have been us instead of him”.

    All the children sing
    Hey, Bungalow Bill
    what did you kill
    Bungalow Bill?

    Hey, Bungalow Bill
    what did you kill
    Bungalow Bill?

    etc.

    1968 Northern Songs, Ltd.

  135. tigrismus said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:32

    Also, all of the puppies on that farm were fascists.

    German Shepherds? Dachshunds? Wait, that would be if they were classic puppofascists… Chihuahua-doodles?

  136. SamFromUtah said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:32

    If you had a state (maybe a small one) populated entirely by people who worked as nannies, would this be a nanny-state?

    Yes. A state populated entirely by female goats also qualifies.

  137. actor212 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:33

    French poodles, tig

  138. t4toby said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:33

    To be fair, please consider the possibility that he is one of the brightest conservative minds and one of the best conservative writers, and that he was hired by the National Review because he was the most qualified applicant for the job.

    Backhanded compliment much?

  139. actor212 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:34

    My current dilemma as a new Jew is whether or not I should be trusted to shower myself.

    Bubba, I wouldn’t worry about it for a while.

    You still have that “new Jew” smell.

  140. pedestrian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:34

    What, exactly, does it take to NOT be a fascist? As best I can tell you must be against making life better, improving public health, promoting equality, furthering education, and improving public discourse.

    The only non-fascists are the FYIGM (that’s Fuck You, I Got Mine) glibertarians. It’s not that they actively wish harm, its just that they don’t want anyone touching their shiny shiny gold.

    Kind of like all the bullion that the Nazis stored in… GOD DAMNIT now I can’t stop.

  141. Legalize said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:36

    Just my 2 cents: Carl Schmitt is a polular read among academics in general. He’s an important study. Just because one studies Schmitt, discusses him, and teaches him does not mean that one subscribes to his philosophy of the state. I know concepts like this can’t be explained to Panload, but sheesh.

  142. El Cid said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:39

    He’s an important study. Just because one studies Schmitt, discusses him, and teaches him does not mean that one subscribes to his philosophy of the state.

    Yes it does when they are liberals, it means that they are fascists because they read Carl Schmitt. Also, they are fascists if they do NOT read Carl Schmitt. Both are true. Which seems like a contradiction. But I will show that it is really not. This is also my point.

  143. SamFromUtah said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:39

    Just because one studies Schmitt, discusses him, and teaches him does not mean that one subscribes to his philosophy of the state.

    If the ‘load does believe you’re not allowed to read anything by people you disagree with, it would explain a lot about his own political philosophy.

    There’s been plenty of good crazy in this book so far, but I’m waiting for the Sadlies to get to the part of the book where he explains that liberals are fascist because they laugh at him for wanting to upload his mind into a robot.

  144. t4toby said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:40

    Oh, and Saul, do they not teach humility to Rabbis at whatever Christo-Jewish sect you come from?

    Or is that not part of the program, like grammar and spelling?

  145. George S. Patton said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:41

    Pantload, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!

  146. Lesley said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:43

    I’m waiting for Ben & Jonah’s Half-Baked Chunky I Scream Co. to sue SadlyNo for scanning and displaying copyrighted material on their web site!1%$#^&%^

  147. ellenbrenna said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:46

    I think Jonah got high with KLO listened to “California Uber Alles” on repeat and they agreed over raw cookie dough that it would make a great book.

    He probably just fixated on the line “You will jog for the master race and always wear a happy face”

    Also Jello Biafra, totally a conservative.

  148. t4toby said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:48

    I think that Jonah is a supergenius villian of the type found in The Tick.

    It is really quite a feat to be this bad.

    A veritable monument to Neo-Conservatism.

    Kudos, Loadpants, kudos.

  149. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:56

    What, exactly, does it take to NOT be a fascist?

    IOKIYAR

    The rest is commentary (or perhaps Commentary). Now go and eat more Cheetos.

  150. ellenbrenna said,

    December 20, 2007 at 0:59

    All of the issues with the Progressive movement that make it not so progressive by contemporary standards can be attributed to the unquestioned dominance of White Supremacy (The Original Identity Politics).

    According to Goldberg White Supremacy movements are not fascist but people he does not like, who create movements he does not like but who are steeped in White Supremacy are totally fascist.

    He can’t really be that glaringly stupid. This has to be some sort of joke. Like a parody of Coulter or something.

  151. Nelly said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:01

    As a liittle bit of an intellectual history buff myself, let me make a few points:

    (1) It is fairly accurate, in my view, that modern American Liberalism is a direct descendent of early Twentieth Century American Progressivism which, in turn, was steeped in European Fascist thought. If you read into the lives and times of the Pragmatists in particular (all of whom I admire for reasons other than their political prescriptions), they openly borrowed and promoted the ideas and ideals of European fascists and protofascists — Pappini immediately comes to mind.

    (2) The programs of Wilson and FDR were very much influenced by the Progressive/Pragmatic ideas of the time. While most of the sins that came along with these programs (the first “Red Scare,” the internment camps, the thousands of political prisoners) are now attributed to unique, hysterical moments in American culture by most mainstream historians, it is hard to separate them from Pragmatist/Progressive ideas.

    (3) It is true many of Strauss’ thought is indebted to Carl Schmidt (as well as Heidegger’s for that matter), but only in the negative sense. Strauss’ entire career was devoted to wrestling with, and ultimately neutralizing, the formidable but lethal thought of Schmidt, Heidegger, et al. by replacing it with a reasonable faith in what we would now consider “universal norms of human conduct” or “human rights.” Paul de Man and his ilk, however, who represent a far more influential segment of the academic community, seek to demolish any attempts at such universals, and have turned to Schmidt and Heidegger as a means of doing so. Having said that, America’s current troubles in Babylon are more the product of imprudence and cultural ignorance than any sycophantic turn to Strauss (who was a VERY prudent, to the point of apolitical, man). Also, just out of curiosity, are there any other American academics of the modern Right who are at all associated with Schmidt?? I can’t think of any.

    Now, where I disagree with Jonah:

    (4) From my perspective (which I admit, is heavilly libertarian), American Progressivism has permeated virtually all segments of the contemporary political landscape in America. Whereas modern liberalism has borrowed extensively from Bismarck’s (and Wilson’s and Mussolini’s and FDR’s and Hitler’s…) welfare state model, modern conservatism has taken much from Teddy Roosevelt’s new nationalism or Herbert Croly’s equally nationalist scribblings in The New Republic. They have also been inspired by the Social Gospel in the form of “Compassionate Conservatism,” probably moreso than Jonah would like to confess.

    (5) If I were to write a book along these lines, it would indict the entire American political machine — in fact, the entire world’s collection of political machines — as having constructed a “third-way,” corporatist, and yes, essentially Fascist/Progressive welfare state. This was the Twentieth Century’s gift to man. And until serious people on the so-called “Left” and “Right” keep considering it more of a gift than a curse, it’s going to keep on “giving”…

  152. kingubu said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:05

    I think Jonah got high with KLO listened to “California Uber Alles” on repeat and they agreed over raw cookie dough that it would make a great book.

    Now, see, if you start down that road you end up having to try to explain to guys like Der Pantload that many of liberalism’s harshest critiques come from the left. It makes their eyes go all spinny and you wind up having to call the EMTs.

  153. r4d20 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:06

    Allow me to play Devils Advocate – while making it clear that this book looks to break all stupidity records.

    1) Jonah isn’t the only idiot. I have seen equally tendentious attempts by leftists, employing the exact same kind of rhetorical bullshit, to paint Bolshevism as a “rightwing” thing. When leftists say (as I have heard) “Bolshevism was ‘State Capitalism’ and all Capitalism is definitionally rightwing” they sound just as dumb as when guys like Pantload say National ‘Socialism is a type of Socialism and hence is definitionally leftwing.

    2) While the “leftish” elements of National Socialism emphatically do NOT prove it was “part of the left” they do illustrate that “leftist” rhetoric and even policies can be used by ANYONE to gain and hold power. Simply helping the poor is neither necessarily “left” nor good – it depends on the purpose behind it. Roman aristocrats like Caesar spent lavishly to give the poor masses free bread and circuses – not because they were generous or cared for the poor but because they wanted a loyal “rent-a-mob” who could be unleashed on their enemies when needed. Sadly, while this is recognized in theory by everyone, many leftwingers still have a habit, in practice, of seeing this only after the fact. Again and again progressives have allowed themselves to be fooled by people who use apparently “progressive” policies in the same way. Even today when an obviously self-centered egoist like Chavez implements a textbook “rent-a-mob” program, the primary purpose of which is simply to help him maintain his position, people continue to take his progressive rhetoric at face value. Reactionaries like Pantload get a lot of traction out of this kind of stupid naivety.

    3) Just as Rape looks like it’s “about sex” but really its “about” power and violence, “Totalitarianism” looks like a matter of politics but really it is a matter of temperament. Intolerance of difference is unrelated to specific political positions. There is a totalitarian temptation in many people and so, yes, there IS a totalitarian temptation on the left because there are people on the left who are just as uncompromising in their pursuit of what they think is right and just as hateful to those whom they think obstruct their pursuit as anyone on the right. Attempts to place totalitarianism on one side or the other will only continue to allow totalitarian assholes to disguise themselves simply by pretending to be on whatever wing is considered “safe” by the foolish.

  154. Saul said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:06

    The bottom line is, Theodore Roosevelt and Joesph McCarthy were Conservative Patriots so I have to respectfully disagree with my friend Jonah Goldberg who I deeply respect and admire, however everything else he said is exactly right.

  155. Righteous Bubba said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:06

    If I were to write a book along these lines

    Whoa whoa WHOA there!!!

  156. El Cid said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:07

    Al-Qaida offers ‘interview’ with No. 2

    By MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 18 minutes ago

    CAIRO, Egypt – Al-Qaida has invited journalists to send questions to its No. 2 figure, Ayman al-Zawahri, in the first such offer by the increasingly media-savvy terror network to “interview” one of its leaders since the 9-11 attacks.

    There is only one journalist, columnist, and historian who could ever be qualified to be sent for such an interview to be done with such care or in such detail. You know who it is.

  157. Principal Blackman said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:11

    There is only one journalist, columnist, and historian who could ever be qualified to be sent for such an interview to be done with such care or in such detail. You know who it is.

    We definitely need to send Stalkin’ Malkin so she can ask him why he’s such a raving liberal and why he’s so pro-choice and into gay rights and stuff.

  158. El Cid said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:14

    Nelly, I too could write all sorts of critiques about the state, democracy, and the use and ideology of state power, particularly given the rise of nationalism of the late 19th century which led quite directly to so many of these phenomenon.

    And none of those comments or intellectual histories would have the slightest connection to the still born eruption of irradiated DNA which is the subject of these blog posts.

    Many, many people are aware of libertarian (both propertarian and libertarian socialist) critiques of the rise of modern state power, and yet they are never justified in simply hashing together lines and sentences to decry some vague mish mash of opponents as really fascist, including the French Revolution.

  159. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:16

    Berube! YAY!
    http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/19/the-goldberg-variations/

  160. El Cid said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:18

    We definitely need to send Stalkin’ Malkin…

    I had in mind a historian, and one capable of producing a 400 page book based on the interview, one that had never been before done with such care or in such detail. That is my central point.

  161. disinterestedobserver said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:19

    Oh my G – where does one start?

    I am proudly Australian (but have also lived in England). and I know that Goldberg is impossible in either of my political cultures. Nobody would take his arguments seriously, and he would probaly be unpublishable. or more likely he would publish himself, and be ignored.

    You have to change the terms of the debate – and this is much, much, much more than ” framing”

    Good luck and bon courage!!

  162. Gavin M. said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:30

    Nelly, there was intellectual crossover among all the major currents of early 20th Century political and social thought. The question isn’t whether Progressivism and European proto-fascism shared some of the same influences — which they certainly did — but whether the similarities are meaningful.

    The best you can end up with is that Progressivism is like fascism without the fascist stuff — and vice versa. At a certain point, the comparison isn’t illuminating because the differences are so singular and imminent.

    I think Nolte’s idea of the ‘fascist minimum’ needs some props here. Goldberg actually mentions Nolte, oddly enough in a passage in which he claims that fascism is essentially undefinable.

  163. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:32

    Nelly, yes, there are points that can be made about the influences of Continental nasties on American politics. (I think any but the most informed readings of Foucault are dangerous, for example.) But this shit is ridiculous. I mean, “Closing of the AMerican Mind” is orders of magnitude more sensible than this goldbergian shit.

    (By the way, when I pass the Derb next time on the street, I’m going to ask him point blank what it’s like being associated with Goldberg.)

  164. Gary Ruppert said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:34

    Why the hell does he keep talking about “What liberals don’t know/understand/realize”?

    The fact is, liberals claim to be intellectuals, but understand very little, except getting their freebies from the government and hating Bush. Their main arguement is to accuse patriots like Goldberg and myself of “projection”, when the fact is they project hate on us.

  165. Andrew said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:34

    Googled “doughy pantload”, and this is what I found:

    Amazon.com: doughy pantloadA community about doughy pantload. Tag and discover new products. Share your images and discuss your questions with doughy pantload experts.
    http://www.amazon.com/tag/doughy%20pantload – 133k – Cached – Similar pages

    Do we count as doughy pantload experts yet? Can Amazon.com truly provide a better community about doughy pantload issues? I’m not sure.

  166. NickM said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:34

    “I find this book (and S,N!’s ongoing coverage of it) quite hilarious, but I must admit, part of me is depressed that there will be people out there who will read this page and nod their heads in agreement, saying, “Yes! Exactly!””

    I don’t think so. I’ve discovered that these books are not actually meant to be read. The people who buy them don’t like to read – they just want to have certain nutty cultural signifiers around the house for the other idjits they socialize with.

    People who can read and think and actually know something about history – even the very conservative – would have to stop and vomit every other page. It’s not meant to be read – obviously more thought went into the cover than into the content.

  167. Gary Ruppert said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:39

    The fact is that calling Goldberg names does not invalidate his argument; that you are dangerous fascists, and should not have any influence on our society, that you should shut up or be shut up. Here in the Heartland, we understand this and agree with the thesis of this book, that the best way to be in America is conservative and support small government, the free market, our troops, our president and God.

  168. J— said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:40

    Can someone who has a copy of the book tell us if Goldberg mentions Heidegger? Thanks.

  169. Smut Clyde said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:40

    “key words of the vocabulary of postmodernism (deconstructionism, logocentrism) actually had their origins in antiscience tracts written by Nazi and protofascist writers…” “The first appearance of the word Dekonstruktion was in a Nazi psychiatry journal…”

    If he is arguing that deconstructionism and post-structuralism are basically right-wing schools of thought, then for once I find myself in agreement.

  170. t4toby said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:43

    A sampling of discussion threads on Amazon:

    Is this the worst book ever written?
    Is Jonah married or still living with Mommy?
    Fiction!
    Were the tags for this book purged?

  171. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:43

    I’m nearly certain that a good portion of the coming 400 pages will try to sully “liberals” who study Heidegger with Heidegger’s Nazism. Oldest trick in the book, and one he’s nearly forced to resort to. I also recall him asking for help on The Corner with Heidegger (which he said was too difficult for him to actually read, if I remember correctly.)

  172. Hoosier X said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:46

    any positive mention of Christianity is ridiculed in some self-described Progressive circles

    You got anything resembling an example?
    Cuz this sounds like one of those things that gets repeated over and over.

    “Progressives” can be very critical of Christianity, I admit. Modern Christianity often deserves (and thrives on) a bit of mockery. But “any positive mention”?

    Maybe you should back off this statement a bit.

  173. Djur said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:47

    If he is arguing that deconstructionism and post-structuralism are basically right-wing schools of thought, then for once I find myself in agreement.

    Do go on.

  174. Kathleen said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:47

    I have no more funny left in me.

    I kind of want a cigarette, but I can’t remember if smoking is fascist or preventing myself from smoking is fascist, and I don’t want to have to fascistically beat myself up like a female grade school teacher.

  175. Hoosier X said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:48

    I am from the Heartland and I was just there visiting.

    And, Gary, they specifically asked me to ask you to quit speaking for them.

    They are very upset at how stupid you make them look.

  176. Saul said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:48

    The bottom line is, you liberals are atheio-fascists and you and your atheio-fascist agenda must be stopped by whatever means necessary for the good of this Nation.

  177. tigrismus said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:49

    Goldberg actually mentions Nolte, oddly enough in a passage in which he claims that fascism is essentially undefinable.

    But he knows it when he sees it.

  178. Jennifer said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:50

    Ok, just from reading the excerpts posted, I can feel that I’ve already lost points off my IQ. Dudes, I’m seriously worried that if you don’t give up on this quixotic quest to try to find meaning somewhere, anywhere, in the Pantload Opus, your loved ones are gonna end up spooning Gerber’s into your mouths for the rest of your lives.

    For the sake of your fine snarky minds, and ours, I beg you to stop now.

  179. Righteous Bubba said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:54

    For the sake of your fine snarky minds, and ours, I beg you to stop now.

    I beg you to continue. This is one fucking funny book.

  180. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:54

    Heidegger and Nietzsche are mentioned together.
    From page 174

    Deconstruction is a direct and unapologetic offshoot of Heidegger’s brand of existentialism, which not only was receptive to Nazism but helped foster it. Heidegger was the great inheritor of Nietzsche’s assault on truth and morality, which held that we make our own truth and decide our own morality. For Heidegger and Nietzsche alike, good and evil were childish notions. What matters is will and choice. Self assertion was the highest value. Choices were worthwhile only if they were authentic choices, heedless of conventional morality. This was the ethos of Nazism that Heidegger wholeheartedly… blah blah blah

    Goes on like that for a couple pages. Despite Derrida being an Algerian Jew, deconstruction is, like, totally Nazi, tho we’ve already seen why that is.
    Later he calls Foucault “the Nietzschean pragmatist Foucault”.

    I’m still stuck at “Heidegger’s brand of existentialism”, myself. Oy.

  181. J— said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:55

    jeff: I’m wondering if Goldberg has missed a totally awesome wingnut word game gotcha moment by going with Göring’s cousin (Matthias Heinrich Göring) and the use of the term Dekonstruction in a psychiatry journal he was associated with (this point seems to come from Jean-Pierre Faye’s La Raison Narrative)—a use you can bet good money has little or nothing to do with the way Derrida used the term deconstruction—instead mentioning Hiedegger and making the real, more substantive argument about the influence of Heidegger’s dekonstruction on Derrida’s development of his term.

  182. fleinn said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:55

    No he didn’t. You’re projecting your own ideas on to him. He set out to conflate every negative development in history with the word “left,” because he’s incapable of a nuanced understanding of history that might admit that somewhere at some point a non-liberal did a nasty thing.

    ..I think left and right doesn’t really come into it, just like with the earlier fascists. He’s clearly arguing from a position that could change at a moment’s notice, is not dependent on philosophy, belief, or reason, and things of that sort. So I think what he’s really doing is preaching to a thought core of largely apolitical “mass”, who worry about the power of the state, the liberals and the threats to “decency” and national strength. In order to justify those sentiments as legitimate support for what must always be called “conservatism”. I.e., “protect”, “conserve”, “responsible” is the point, not the actual politics.

    It’s kind of funny. If you take a look at some of the propaganda written for and by the Nazis, and how people rationalised the necessity for it all in some places outside the party HQ – you’ll find the exact same themes, and the same language. I.e, that the liberals, progressives, or those who disagree with the road forward – are out to poison the minds of the young, and undermine the nation. That progressivism threatens to break down the structure of society. That anything else threatens to break down the structure of society. That the leadership offers continuity and safety and the structure of society, typically by definition. Unless it changes due to extraordinary circumstances. In which case it’s for a good reason, obviously: The leadership is wise.

    And if they’re not wise, then they have failed the ideals by unfortunate omission of important words. Which means they need to correct their path, typically to avoid being misled by what the progressives and liberals – or Italians or communists – want.

  183. Hoosier X said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:55

    The bottom line is, somebody never answered my question about how appropriate (or sensible) it is for Jonah to compare white males under liberal fascism to the Jews under the Nazis.

    Why the silence on this topic?

  184. J— said,

    December 20, 2007 at 1:57

    And there’s a certain Christmas elf showing the Christmas spirit and sharing the goods on Heidegger and Goldberg. Thank you very much.

  185. Saul said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:00

    Its not exactly the same obviously, because liberals don’t have the power currently to liquidate White Males like the nazis did to the Jews. However if the ultra-moonbat left had the opportunity I’m sure they would try it. They are after all moonbats, who are just as evil and crazy as the nazis.

  186. Clint said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:03

    The fact is that calling Goldberg names does not invalidate his argument; that you are dangerous fascists, and should not have any influence on our society, that you should shut up or be shut up. Here in the Heartland,

    So how are things in the Hunan province, Gary? Still churning out toys with dangerous lead levels?

  187. Gary Ruppert said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:04

    The fact is, we should be able to liquidate liberals. Not actually kill them, but take their assets for use in the War On Terror and the War For Freedom, which they refuse to support. They can live in camps, manufacturing ammunition and blankets.

  188. L Boom said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:04

    I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

    I just thought I’d point out that Jonah Goldberg is not, in fact, The Walrus. That said, it really is very easy to mistake him for one.

  189. Jennifer said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:06

    Hoosier X – To break the silence, it was neither appropriate nor sensible for Jonah to compare white males under liberal fascism to the Jews under the Nazis. That’s the short answer.

    The long answer is that since liberal fascism has never existed, the statement is already a non-starter, and for Jonah to compare the indignities that white men have suffered under liberals – who forced them to compete on a more level field rather than relying on their skin color and appendages to give them a leg up – with people who were gassed and burned by the millions by a real fascist is quite obviously crass and disgusting.

    There are probably other things that could be said on the topic, but probably the short answer is all that needs to be said.

  190. Element 5 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:07

    the best way to be in America is conservative and support small government, the free market, our troops, our president and God.

    Wow…………god needs *my* support?? I AM SO AWESOME!!!!

  191. Saul said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:07

    I agree, the treasonous liberals should be forced to do their part in defense of America and Western Civilization.

  192. Jennifer said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:08

    Walruses supposedly smell really bad, though not as bad as Pantload.

  193. Doctorb Science said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:09

    Dear Fascist Bully Boy, Give me more money. You bastards.

    May the fruit of your loins remain fruitful in the belly of your woman,
    Neil

  194. Gary Ruppert said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:10

    liberals don’t have the power currently to liquidate White Males like the nazis did to the Jews. However if the ultra-moonbat left had the opportunity I’m sure they would try it. They are after all moonbats, who are just as evil and crazy as the nazis.

    The fact is, not yet, brother. Not yet. But we need to pre-empt their designs of evil and collaboration with our enemies. Here in the heartland, we brook no tolerance with “tolerance”. We kill America’s enemies. Dead.

  195. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:10

    J,

    I think Derrida explicitly cites Heidegger’s relevant first use of Dekonstruction, and then traces it to Nietzsche. Derrida takes the Fascist co-lineages of philosophy very seriously–even if he often sounds glib. I was at a talk by Derrida at the moment Paul de Man’s Nazism was really exposed in the early 90s. For once, wordplay and joyful expressions of language were halted, and Derrida struggled to express just how heartbreaking the revelations were. Nobody–as you well know–in academia diminishes or skirts Heidegger’s Nazism. And again, with Nietzsche, we all must deal with the fact that a giant in thought was politically retarded, and reckless enough to make his cooption by Hitler very easy.

    Anyway, we should be quoting doughboy and laughing. As he himself is first to admit, he didn’t read any of this stuff, and isn’t prepared or qualified to discuss intellectual history on the merits. He admitted this ahead of time.

    Someone should write an exhaustive review, and take the time to delve into the actual issues that are referenced in the book. But really, why? The author himself didn’t bother, you know?

  196. Element 5 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:10

    Its not exactly the same obviously, because liberals don’t have the power currently to liquidate White Males like the nazis did to the Jews. However if the ultra-moonbat left had the opportunity I’m sure they would try it. They are after all moonbats, who are just as evil and crazy as the nazis.

    Oooops! It sounds like someone didn’t get his war with Iran!

  197. Smut Clyde said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:10

    Djur said,
    Do go on.

    My opinions on deconstructionism and post-structuralism are based on an enjoyment of the Sokal hoax (and Bradbury’s book ‘Mensonge’) rather than on reading the authors in question. But you probably suspected that.
    I have made sincere attempts to make sense of Lacan, but his work reduced me to paroxysms of incoherent rage.

  198. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:10

    Strauss’ entire career was devoted to wrestling with, and ultimately neutralizing, the formidable but lethal thought of Schmidt, Heidegger, et al. by replacing it with a reasonable faith in what we would now consider “universal norms of human conduct” or “human rights.” …Also, just out of curiosity, are there any other American academics of the modern Right who are at all associated with Schmidt?? I can’t think of any.

    Well, Nelly, the first sentence is, simply put, untrue.

    Early in his career, Leo Strauss was quite close to Schmitt. Strauss’s famous review of Schmitt’s Concept of the Political challenges Schmitt to adopt a more radical critique of classical liberalism and rights talk. Schmitt, impressed by Strauss, helped Strauss get the Rockefeller grant to work in France that allowed him to get out of Germany just prior to the Nazis’ coming to power. During this period, in the mid-1930s, Strauss rather infamously wrote a letter to his friend Karl Löwith extolling the virtues of fascism.

    Now a case can be made that Strauss turned his back on all this after coming to America. Certainly there are serious Strauss scholars who think that too much has been made of both the Löwith letter and the early relationship to Schmitt. (Though others suggest that the nature of Strauss’s prudence involved simply never saying these things once he came to this country.)

    At any rate, the current, orthodox American Straussian view is that the Schmitt-Strauss connection was strong. This is the view represented by the German scholar Heinrich Meier (author of Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: the Hidden Dialogue), who these days spends half his time at the University of Chicago.

    So to respond to your second question: so-called East Coast and Chicago Straussians are American academics of the modern Right who value Schmitt (even if they may be wrong about the later Strauss’s actual views on the matter).

  199. Troll, The Ancient Yuletide Carol said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:12

    “…that’s why it was called ‘Progressivism’ in the first place: Because the conservative view at the time was that children ought to be working sixty hours a week in meat-packing plants, and so forth.”

    I was taught to do just that, as a child, but I rebelled and became an underground aspiring rock star (but without the money and with only a fraction of the fame) instead. It’s paid off, just check out this review of my new Christmas CD:

    http://www.tollbooth.org/2008/reviews/drblt.html

    Funny thing, even though I’ll never set foot in a meat-packing plant again, I still haven’t given up my core conservative values. But I still love all of you liberals and wish you a very MERRY CHRISTMAS and a HAPPY NEW YEAR. There’s no war on Christmas so that greeting shouldn’t be a problem, should it?

  200. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:12

    (Sorry, I just checked, and the de Man revelations came several years before I was at that talk. I only learned about it then…so I thought it was a fresh news.)

  201. Gary Ruppert said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:13

    The fact is, Jennifer, maybe we should let the women and the minorities compete without a leg up, or a leg over — but liberals can’t. They promote them beyond their abilities and it is why we have so many problems today. And why white males are an endangered species. Even in the Heartland, we are disgusted by the set-asides for the undeserving who are only leaches and contribute nothing. What if we, the hard workers, went on strike? We never would though, we know America depends on us. Even the slimy underdeserving cum who eat without a lick of work.

  202. jnfr said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:14

    Geez, Saul, you’re the one saying we leftists need to be gotten rid of “by any means necessary”. I don’t see anyone here threatening you that way.

  203. Clint said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:15

    Yep, way to answer the question there, Sol. They haven’t actually done anything approaching what the Nazis did during the Holocaust, but they could in some far off, unforseeable future force white males to eat tofu and organic tomato sandwiches on Roman Meal. Then, only then, will the devious plot of Teh Fachsist Lieberalz be exposed!!!!!!111111oneuno!!!

    Now that we have a good laugh, why don’t you elucidate us as to what the liberals have actually DONE to White Males to approach the dastardly nature of the Nazis, and furthermore explain how this could have happened when a good portion of liberals ARE white males.

    I’ll be sitting here drumming my fingers in anticipation.

  204. Saul said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:15

    Exactly, the liberals are traitors who would align with America’s enemies in the event of an invasion. We in the Heartland understand this, however the coastal areas not so much since they are run by the moonbats. All of us Patriots should definately preempt the fascist plans of the traitorous left.

  205. Gary Ruppert said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:15

    Geez, Saul, you’re the one saying we leftists need to be gotten rid of “by any means necessary”. I don’t see anyone here threatening you that way.

    I see your allies, the Muslims, flying plains into buildings.

  206. Saul said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:17

    All the illegal aliens must be rounded up and deported, then White Males and all Patriotic Americans of all races will regain their majority.

  207. El Cid said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:17

    I see your allies, the Muslims, flying plains into buildings.

    Presumably these would be fueled entirely by ethanol. On the other hand, I have never seen a flight school for these.

  208. Bennett said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:17

    Jonah’s remarks on deconstruction and Carl Schmitt are like an R. D. Laing knot: one does not know where to begin to entangle it. He provides no evidence that the use of the word “dekonstruktion” in a journal edited by a Goering relative has anything to do with deconstrionism. He provides no reading at all of deconstructionist thinkers, & it’s quite clear he hasn’t read them. Finally, he has wholly missed the interested in Schmitt from Zizek, Agamben, & others—not all of whom are deconstructionists in any sense, e.g. Zizek. How on earth could an editor let him get away with saying that their interest in Schmitt is a “tacit endorsement” of and “reverence” for him, even though they disagree with him? One of the things that struck me right from the start is that Goldberg has not read Schmitt—& this is significant because Schmitt is the classic Fascist political philosopher, the first thinker one would turn to in defining fascism. If Jonah had used his brain, he could not have tumbled off the cliff in virtually every single statement about fascism in the book. And of course Agamben and others who study Schmitt do so in order to come to a correct understanding of the fascism they stand in opposition to.

  209. Righteous Bubba said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:19

    If Jonah had used his brain

    200 comments in and this kind of thing still strikes me as funny.

  210. jnfr said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:19

    Muslims are just like US Christianists, wanting religious control of the state and women kept barefoot and pregnant. They’re not my allies. I’m the leftist remember? I’m all about abortions, free love, and keeping religion out of government.

  211. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:20

    Do any of the other white males here find it surprising to find out that “the system” is stacked against us? I mean, if this is basically parallel (though not as viscious) to what happened to the jewish people in the Shoah…well, I’m going to want my donation to the Holocaust memorial refunded!

  212. Clint said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:21

    The fact is, Jennifer, maybe we should let the women and the minorities compete without a leg up, or a leg over — but liberals can’t. They promote them beyond their abilities and it is why we have so many problems today. And why white males are an endangered species. Even in the Heartland, we are disgusted by the set-asides for the undeserving who are only leaches and contribute nothing. What if we, the hard workers, went on strike? We never would though, we know America depends on us. Even the undeserving who are only leaches and contribute nothing.

    So let me get this straight: women and minorities are “undeserving who are only leaches and contribute nothing.” Women and minorities are “undeserving who are only leaches and contribute nothing.”

    And conservatives and Republicans wonder why womeon and minorities aren’t flocking in droves to them.

  213. fleinn said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:22

    The fact is, we should be able to liquidate liberals. Not actually kill them, but take their assets for use in the War On Terror and the War For Freedom, which they refuse to support. They can live in camps, manufacturing ammunition and blankets.

    I agree. And that’s a much more nazi- safe way of doing things. Yes – let no one say, that we do not treat, even the enemies of civilisation.. with dignity *solemn air blowing flag, hand on heart*.

  214. Saul said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:23

    Gary and I are right, you liberals are all a bunch of traitors who would ally with the islamo-fascists in the event of invasion on American soil. We in the Heartland and all Patriotic Americans will fight you liberals and your muslim allies tooth and nail when the invasion occurs, and you and your muslim allies will be soundly defeated.

  215. Gary Ruppert said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:23

    The fact is, Clint, the truth hurts, doesn’t it?

    The fact is, Jennifer, liberals still think Islam is a superior religion to Christianity and want special rights for Muslims and terrorists.

  216. Righteous Bubba said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:24

    Psst: Saul and Gary are neither serious nor important. They may be used as an excuse to say something funny but more engagement than that is a waste of time.

  217. jnfr said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:26

    They’re the same person, aren’t they?

  218. Righteous Bubba said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:26

    Also, http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/13541

  219. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:27

    Oh, guys – just so you know: Gary and Saul are our resident trolls. Taking anything they say seriously just ruins the fun we all have laughing at them.

    They’re not worth responding to, but it can be fun to take the dumber things they say and make lolcats out of them! Try it!

  220. Gary Ruppert said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:27

    The fact is, here in the Heartland we are very serious and important, but not self-important like coastal elietest liberals and the Hollywood set who want us to die in a flame deluge instead of admitting they are wrong.

  221. Clint said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:29

    The fact is, Gary, you’ve just outed yourself as a racist scumbag. Have fun at the next KKK/Aryan Nations weenie roast.

    Who wants pie?

  222. Saul said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:29

    Clint, the left has harmed White Males using un-constitutional affirmative action programs to insure that highly qualified whites don’t get hired for a job or execpted at a universitiy while un-qualified minorities will get accepted or hired due to the color of their skin. Does that answer your question?

  223. C. elegans said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:29

    Gavin:

    If it hasn’t already been suggested–since I’ve not yet read all 200 + comments–you really have to post “California Uber Alles,” if you can find it. That’d be the perfect tune for S,N!’s ongoing LOLlafasciapalooza.

  224. Righteous Bubba said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:30

    They’re the same person, aren’t they?

    It would seem so. The original Gary Ruppert was neither tenacious nor voluble.

  225. polderjongen said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:30

    Gary

    Here in the Heartland, we understand this and agree with the thesis of this book, that the best way to be in America is conservative and support small government, the free market, our troops, our president and God.

    Oh, the irony.

  226. piotr said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:30

    A lesser man would succumb to temptation of chiding today’s liberals: see, your forbears were GOOD people, they supported Palmer rides, but you scum oppose such tame measures like reforming FISA! It takes fortitude to claim that liberals, and everybody who could be proto-liberals, and post-liberals, and similar to liberal, were scum, are scum and they will be scum.

    The most important thing in political thought his getting correctly the difference between good and evil. Good is what good people do, evil is what evil people do. If good people support Palmer’s rides, it is good. If evil people support Palmer’s rides, bad. It is really simple. With one simple principle (or zero, by another count), we can decide everything that matters.

  227. Gary Ruppert said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:33

    The fact is, I am not Saul, but we share common Heartland values and a love for America. We also share a disgust for liberals and leftists and their pollution of our great heritage and the risks they expose us to in order to be inclusive and nice. We are at war. We cannot afford to be nice.

  228. Element 5 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:34

    the liberals are traitors who would align with America’s enemies in the event of an invasion.

    I, for one, hail our Iranian overlords, with their terrifying Air Force blotting out the sun with its numbers and it’s horrifyingly gigantic Navy, covering the entire ocean, so that their mind-numbingly awesome high-tech Army only has to drive across the clustered decks of their ships to attack us in our very heartland!!!

  229. polderjongen said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:34

    “The Heartland” sure sounds like Das Dritte Reich, doesn’t it?

  230. Jennifer said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:34

    The fact is, Jennifer, maybe we should let the women and the minorities compete without a leg up, or a leg over — but liberals can’t. They promote them beyond their abilities and it is why we have so many problems today. And why white males are an endangered species. Even in the Heartland, we are disgusted by the set-asides for the undeserving who are only leaches and contribute nothing. What if we, the hard workers, went on strike?

    The fact is, Gary, I attended architecture school, where the entire admissions process was based on a set-aside, that being those students who could complete the prerequisite courses for admission with a certain GPA. A school that would have actively discouraged my attendance only 10 or 15 years prior to when I started, because architecture was not considered a profession for women. I took advantage of another set aside when I accepted my current job as a construction project manager, that job being set aside for people who can read prints, understand construction techniques, give direction to workers (most of whom are white males) in a way that the workers do not resent, deal with clients, package proposals, and estimate jobs correctly to earn a profit for the company. I know of exactly two female construction managers in this metro area of a half million people. I’m sure there must be a few others, but we’re definitely not thick on the ground, and 15 years ago, there weren’t any of us.

    Long story short, you can take your aggrieved “endangered” white male and stick him up your arse. The white guys whose work I direct on a daily basis could have had my job if they had picked up the necessary skills to do it. They didn’t. I did. If you didn’t bother picking up those skills needed to advance in whatever field you’re in, it sure as hell isn’t my fault or the fault of your women or minority bosses.

  231. tom said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:36

    I don’t think I’ll be adopting this “text” for class. Doughy Pantload’s stoopid is just too intense.

  232. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:37

    Jennifer, don’t worry about Gary.

    Even he doesn’t believe the crap he says.

    Do a search through the archives here for “Gary Ruppert” and see what you find.

    He’s not just a troll; he’s a pet troll! It’s like the 80s around here – we collect ‘em, and tease their hair when we get bored in study hall.

  233. jnfr said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:38

    Also, http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/13541

    Bless you, Bubba.

  234. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:38

    Schmitt is the classic Fascist political philosopher, the first thinker one would turn to in defining fascism.

    I think that’s overstating the case. Schmitt is certainly a classic reactionary authoritarian political philosopher. But he was actually a fairly late convert to Nazism, not joining the party until 1933.

    I’d say Giovanni Gentile would be the first thinker one would turn to in defining fascism. Unless one happens to be Jonah Goldberg, in which case it would apparently be Walter Rauschenbusch or John Dewey.

  235. glad to be gbear said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:39

    May I take this opportunity to introduce the pantload cheer:

    One Smart Fella! He Felt Smart!
    One Smart Fella! He Felt Smart!
    One Smart Fella! He Felt Smart!
    One Smart Fella! He Felt Smart!

    to be repeated as fast as you can.

  236. tom said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:40

    Lets see- the “Heartland” (clearly nowhere near Chicago, where I live and work) has Values? And they include impeaching an elected President and worshipping the lying, thieving chickenhawk moron the Supremes appointed? Nice values, bozo.

  237. J— said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:40

    Okay, Goldberg’s drivel on theory doesn’t deserve much serious consideration, but check this out. If you do a google search of the terms “nazis” and “deconstruction,” the second link is to this essay by Loren Goldner. Here’s Goldner:

    Further, Faye shows that the famous word Dekonstruktion was first used in a Nazi psychiatry journal edited by the cousin of Hermann Göring[.]

    And here’s Goldberg (above in Gavin’s post):

    The first appearance of the word Dekonstruction was in a Nazi psychiatry journal edited by Hermann Göring”s cousin.

    Similar, no? Someone with a copy of the book will have to say what’s the substance of the footnote attached to that sentence (fn 15?).

    Goldner’s essay has lots about Heidegger, but Goldberg seems to have missed or blown off this part of the discussion.

    Whee!

  238. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:41

    I’d say Giovanni Gentile would be the first thinker one would turn to in defining fascism. Unless one happens to be Jonah Goldberg, in which case it would apparently be Walter Rauschenbusch or John Dewey.

    Based on what I’ve read of the Pantload so far, I think Walt Disney or John Jacobjingleheimerschmidt are probably more his speed.

  239. Djur said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:42

    My opinions on deconstructionism and post-structuralism are based on an enjoyment of the Sokal hoax (and Bradbury’s book `Mensonge’) rather than on reading the authors in question. But you probably suspected that.

    Yes, I did. As amusing as the Social Text hoax was, it still only stands as an indictment of Social Text itself.
    To ascribe the intellectual sloppiness that Sokal’s trickery revealed to the entire postmodernist intellectual
    tradition is roughly equivalent to abandoning evolutionary biology because of the existence of evolutionary
    psychology. I might dislike Dawkins and Wilson, but I enjoy Gould; in a similar way, I wholeheartedly agree with
    Sokal’s criticism of the kind of gibberish he effectively imitated, but you’ll take Said’s Orientalism from
    my cold, dead hands.

    I have made sincere attempts to make sense of Lacan, but his work reduced me to paroxysms of incoherent rage.

    I’m no fan of Lacan’s style either, but I fail to see where any of this indicates that post-structuralism et al.
    are right-wing.

  240. Jennifer said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:42

    Jillian – I know. He’s a serial troll of lefty blogs. I like to slap them around a little bit sometimes. They’re the online equivalent of the nerdy kid with the kick me sign on his back, only their sign is “PWN3D”.

  241. gbear said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:42

    tom at 2:40, where ever you are, please stay.

  242. Clint said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:43

    Guys, I know that these asshats are just a joke, but when their racism is laid bare, it ceases being amusing. I’ve seen people like Gary and Saul handing out leaflets about “those people” taking “our” jobs, going to “our” schools, and marrying “our” women. I’ve had to listen as people like Gary and Saul tell racist jokes, pepper their speech with racist slurs and decree that the Dred Scott decision was actually a “good thing”.

    People like Gary and Saul delight in beating down minorities just ’cause they’re bored shitless on a Friday night. Pieces of shit like Gary and Saul go cruising on a Saturday night, don’t get picked up and go out and rape the closest woman (or “queer” looking man) and excuse it by saying “they were asking for it.”

    People like Gary and Saul talk like the fascist Nazis they claim to oppose (though they never get around to condemning actual Nazis, do they?), and when someone calls them on it, they shrug their shoulders and say “the truth hurts.” Well, the TRUTH is that bullshit like that is what will keep our nation from progressing along with other developed nations.

    I am sick and tired of people like this beating the shit out of minoritites and women and then whining like little bitches when someone dares to raise a hand against them.

    You want to talk about the Dustbin of History? Really? Let me tell you something: your way of thinking is going the way of dial telephones. One by one, you racist, sexist motherfuckers are dying off, and though the world may never be completely rid of you, there will come a day when assholes like you are relegated to small shacks in the middle of the woods, and the other 99.999999% of America, and the world, will be better off for it.

    Suck it, you sons of bitches!

  243. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:44

    Djur, I think it’s fair to say that “gibberish” is even a step down from “right wing”.

    If post-structuralist thought inclines toward gibberish, it isn’t right wing, sure.

    It’s just gibberish, which isn’t precisely an improvement.

  244. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:45

    Clint – the reason those guys say the stupid shit they do is to get precisely the reaction they just got from you.

    When you do that, they win.

    Don’t let ‘em.

  245. Bennett said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:46

    What InnocentiaButtocks said is fair enough. Schmitt not only joined Nasdap late but was kicked out early for being soft on Jews, or something. However, he persevered in disciplined academic defense of his positions until near his death aet. 99. I find, as does Agamben, his analysis of power more thorough and revealing for these purposes than Gentile’s.
    In letting my chin hit the floor in public over some of DP’s howlers, such as his remarks about Dewey and Schmitt, though these are just a few of a virtually uncountable number of ridiculous remarks of his, it seems worthwhile to nail him on a few particulars in addition to S,N!’s customary skill in pointing out that Jonah Goldberg is as dumb as a bucket of hair.

  246. pedestrian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:47

    I see your allies, the Muslims, flying plains into buildings.

    Shouldn’t that be a lower-case m? I thought that conservatives only bestowed capitalization on nouns that they agree with.

  247. Doctor Biobrain said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:47

    I feel so fascist. I think I’ll goose-step.

  248. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:48

    Right this moment, I’m making an index of the index, of sorts. I’ll email it to bradrocket and/or gavin for publication.
    Very revealing.

  249. Michael Scott said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:49

    Rather than talk in explicitly religious terms, however, today’s liberals use a secularized vocabulary of “hope” and construct explicitly spiritual philosophies like Hillary Clinton’s “politics of meaning.”

    Something tells me Rabbi Lerner is going to want to have a stern talk with you, Mr. Goldberg!

  250. MzNicky said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:49

    Why the silence on this topic?

    Hoosier X: I should think it would go without saying.

  251. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:49

    Wait, is that jennifer of once upon a time at Scrutator fame?
    Voice sounds familiar.

  252. BJS said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:52

    Slight tangent here, but who is likely to get the nomination for President from the Fascist Party? DoughJo is bringing me around to the notion that the fascists may have a much bigger tent than I previously thought. I mean, if EVERYONE is a fascist, then we may have a viable third party on our hands!

  253. Saul said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:52

    So Clint, I believe you never responded to my answer to that question you asked me about liberals persecuting white males. Are to going to respond to my answer or not? You asked it.

  254. John Lennon said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:52

    I just thought I’d point out that Jonah Goldberg is not, in fact, The Walrus.

    I was the Walrus! Paul wasn’t the Walrus! I was just saying that to be nice, but I was actually the Walrus!

  255. Djur said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:54

    Jillian: I’m not arguing that gibberish is better than right-wing. On the other hand, I also don’t agree that post-structuralism is inclined toward gibberish, any more than Ernst Haeckel’s florid and incessant coinage of meaningless neologisms indicated that biology was inclined toward gibberish. New fields of endeavor often produce massive amounts of neologisms and jargon in a very brief period. The challenge is to then trim this down into a common lexicon.

  256. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:57

    Sorry, Djur. Sokal and Bricmont make way more sense to me than do Kristeva and Baudrillard. I’ve poked in that field a bit, and have come away feeling that there’s just no “there” there. But then again, I have a pretty strong reflexive hatred of the whole New Left. I think it has something to do with my general tendency to act like a seventy five year old cranky spinster.

  257. mikey said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:57

    I just stopped by to check on my blogs.

    So I come to Teh Sadly.

    And what do I find?

    A Nazi Pie Eating contest!

    Now that’s just weird…

    mikey

  258. Djur said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:00

    Jillian: Edward Said?

  259. pedestrian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:02

    Deconstruction is a direct and unapologetic offshoot of Heidegger’s brand of existentialism

    I prefer Sarte brand existentialism. I find it is tough on stains, yet gentle on hands.

  260. Caveat said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:02

    Achtung!

    Who the fuck are gary and saul? Have I missed something? I thought I was keeping up here. My massive gaytheistofitness nazi ego, which sustains me in the War Against Reality and Pink, could take a hit here. I hope I’m not slipping….

  261. M31 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:02

    and the Berliners are jelly doughnuts

  262. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:03

    Haven’t hit Orientalism yet. Honestly, having struggled with Adorno, Foucault, and Habermas for a while, the thought of going near anyone associated with post-anything anymore seems to give me vertigo. Should I take the dramamine and give Said a shot, then?

  263. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:04

    Yes, but Jillian–by NOT banning Gary and Saul, you’re just demonstrating Goldberg’s thesis that you are a liberal fascist. Sure, the classical fascist would–at the very least–ban such dissenters. But liberal fascists are a wiley sort, who obfuscate their similarities to the Nazis by doing the opposite of what the classical fascists would do. Goldberg has your number, now! Fascists!

  264. mikey said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:04

    I do have a question, though.

    Just exactly what has to be wrong with you in order to make you WANT to watch Chris Matthews?

    Or does anybody actually want to?

    What a mindless, droning prick!

    mikey

  265. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:05

    Jillian- if i email you my index of jonah’s index would you put it up?
    i think the s,n! folk would find it worth a peek.
    I pick you cause yer here this moment.

  266. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:05

    Seriously – how the hell does anyone deal seriously with Foucault’s theory of sexuality? My gay friends love being told they don’t really exist – makes them feel extra special loved.

  267. pedestrian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:05

    Are to going to respond to my answer or not? You asked it.

    Saul, too bad you didn’t have a powerful mother, you could have been Jonas.

  268. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:07

    Most of the Foucault fans I know are white doods who don’t agree with him but find him brilliant. I don’t get it either, jillian.

  269. Clint said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:08

    Funny, I’ve never had a problem getting a job or getting into college. No one I know who is a white male has ever had a problem getting a job, a promotion or a post-secondary education because they were white and/or male.

    If you think affirmative action is so goddamned unfair to white males, try thinking about how unfair it was for African Americans to be denied admission to major universities for over 3 centuries.

    If you think that affirmative action is so unconstitutional, maybe you should look up Grutter v. Bollinger, or go to California v. Bakke (read what the decision really said. And in case you want to bring up Parents v. Seattle and Meredith v. Jefferson, go ahead. I didn’t say affirmative action was perfect; no one is.

    However, this is not about pushing the white man down, as you seem so overwhelmingly concerned about. It’s about helping those who would have been otherwise denied the opportinities I and other white males have been afforded for the past 400 years.

    So to sum up, The only place that affirmative action is a threat to the “natural order” of white men leading the way is in your head.

  270. J— said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:08

    Hey, a certain Christmas elf. Would you be a kind elf and share the content of that footnote at the end of Goldberg’s “The first appearance of the word Dekonstrucktion…” sentence (in the second page image in Gavin’s post)? I’d appreciate it.

  271. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:09

    Hey Jillian…I tell all of my intelligent friends who ask if they should invest in reading Foucault et al not to bother. Go see a play, or study biology! Do what’s enlightening to you. Then, sit down and study the history of philosophy until you get to Wittgenstein, at which point you’ll want to pay especial attention…

  272. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:09

    I’m always receptive to elvish emails.

    And, while we’re on the topic, why does Derrida’s written responses to the de Man situation (that de Man’s accusers were the Nazis, not de Man) open up the nominal Left to just the dumbass sorts of charges that Pantload makes here?

  273. Iceberg Goldberg said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:09

    Jillian, I can’t agree. The reason those guys say the stupid shit they do is because they are nasty racist little pricks. They don’t read S!N and get a little thrill out of getting a rise out of someone. Even the LGF crowd is largely too troglodytic for that.

    The funniest part about Der Dowiepantsen is that his book is really only suitable for people who don’t read books, and would beat the shit out of this little turd Jonah if they ever met him.

  274. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:10

    And why do my grammar suck rocks, for that matter?

  275. Djur said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:13

    Jillian: Well, yes. It helps that Said’s actually writing in English, so you’re not simultaneously dealing with the language barriers of both (French|German|etc.) and of pomo. More importantly, he’s applying postmodern intellectual techniques to a specific situation, which helped me immensely. I simultaneously read some of the texts he was commenting on and also some Terry Pratchett to soothe my occasionally spinning head. It was ultimately a very edifying read. It’s certainly easier than Foucault.

  276. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:15

    J– appears to be as follows
    Thomas R. DeGregori, “Muck and Magic or Chance and Progress: Vitalism Versus Hamiltonian Matter-of-Fact Knowledge,”Journal of Economic Issues37, no. 1 (March 2003), pp. 17-33.
    jillian- check yer email.

  277. Gary Ruppert said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:16

    “affirmative action is a threat to the “natural order” of white men leading the way”

    The fact is, there is a reason why this is the natural order. God ordained it. Liberals who get uppity and go against His commandments are in for a world of hurt.

  278. gbear said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:16

    I’m posting the lyrics for a song called Talent Will Out by Clive Gregson and Christine Collister from 1989. A really great sad story song. The posts of the last few days have had this song playing in my head constantly. It’s the cross-gender pantload story.

    My mother loves me, she says I’m her pride and joy
    But my father hates me, he wishes I’d been a boy
    I’m not very pretty, I’m not good in school
    The teachers ignore me, the children are cruel
    But I still have talent and talent will out
    I can sing from a whisper right through to a shout
    I can sing the top forty and songs from the shows
    I can sing you the phone book if I hear how it goes
    And songs are like diamonds that I can’t live without
    Yes I have talent and talent will out
    Yes I have talent, and talent will out.

    I may be precocious. My mother says I’m a star
    She threw out my teddy bear and bought me a real guitar
    Now I always wear make-up, my hair has been styled
    I act like an adult, I think like a child
    And yet I have talent and talent will out
    I can throw all the shapes I can smoulder and pout
    I can turn on the tears and fall to my knees
    I can shake with emotion, I can fool you with ease
    I can be someone cruel or someone devout
    Because I have talent and talent will out
    Yes I have talent, and talent will out.

    Today is my birthday. Today I am ten years old
    I don’t want a party, I don’t want a boy to hold
    I want to be famous, A queen for a day
    And this feeling gets stronger and it won’t go away
    Because I have talent and talent will out
    And a fever is rising to kill any doubt
    Now I’m up on the stage, the music is loud
    I’m singing my heart out, I’m working the crowd
    But the crowd is all laughing and falling about
    Can’t they see I have talent and talent will out
    Mother says I have talent, and talent will out.

  279. Clem said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:16

    Foucault’s enduring contribution to our culture lies in the realm of fashion. Thanks to him, bisexual male undergraduate students the world over think it’s the height of fashion to shave one’s head and wear Buddy Holly spectacles.

    I take Derrida as a sleep aid.

  280. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:18

    Foucault is more frustrating than anything else.

    You know whom he reminds me of? Don’t laugh – Shirley MacLaine.

    MacLaine is always saying crazy things like “we create our own reality”. Now, you can read this statement two ways: the first is that the way we react to the things that happen in our lives is largely in our hands – we can have a good attitude or a bad attitude, essentially. This is such a banal observation that anyone thinking it worth uttering is a total tool. The second way to read it is that she honestly thinks we create our own reality, which really is cause for me to wonder why exactly it is that I am not a leggy, redheaded runway model living in Fiji – and, for that matter, why isn’t everybody?

    Most of Foucault’s work that I’m familiar with seems to fall into this category: either banal or insane, depending upon how one chooses to interpret the deliberately gnomic utterances of the master.

    Feh.

  281. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:18

    Derrida and friends seem to have closed ranks out of ethical cowardice–in writing anyway. I do think that they invited the attacks on them from the right.

    Hell, the attacks on them aren’t just from the right: there’s been a resurgence on the Left of pro-Enlightenment (though non-absolutist) appreciation of rational standards of discourse, and a renewed appreciation for science and the importance of pragmatism. And by the way, Alan Sokal isn’t on the right. He’s a marxian.

  282. J— said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:18

    Thanks, a certain Christmas elf.

  283. Djur said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:19

    The nice thing about philosophy is that you don’t actually have to agree with a philosopher to find them useful. It’s true in other disciplines as well. I don’t agree with Dawkins on gene selection or on evolutionary psychology, but I still found The Selfish Gene an interesting read. The same with Foucault and sexuality, Nietzsche and just about anything, and so forth.

  284. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:20

    Mikey, I never watch Tweety or Pumpkinhead, either.

    But I do like reading Culture of TrÜth‘s live blogging of same.

  285. Clint said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:20

    Mind posting that particular commandment, Gary?

    I didn’t think so. Cock.

  286. Anton Chigurh said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:20

    What business is it of yours if I’m a fascist, friendo?

  287. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:21

    I look at Foucault as a writer of intellectual fiction. His work provokes me a great deal, but he’s just plain fucking wrong on damn near everything.
    Derrida plain bores me. The literary performative aspect of his writing either doesn’t translate or is just so much circling the drain.

  288. Hoosier X said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:22

    However if the ultra-moonbat left had the opportunity I’m sure they would try it.

    What makes you think this? Could you offer something a little more substantial as evidence? I’m a little dubious that you being “sure” offers this view much credibility.

  289. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:24

    Jeff – Sokal’s my homie! Us Marxists gotta stick together – it’s in the club charter.

    Gotta love how often his post-detractors have called him a rightwing shill, considering that he went to Nicaragua under FSLN to teach maths and sciences.

    And you really have to be a pro-Enlightenment type to be a Marxist, as far as I’m concerned. Another reason I hate the “New Left”. What’s wrong with reason? Why is irrationality supposed to be a virtue now? When did I take up residence in Bizarro world?

  290. Hoosier X said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:24

    A little grad school humor:

    Q: What did one postmodernist say to the other postmodernist?

    A: It doesn’t matter.

  291. Djur said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:25

    Jillian: The same is true of quite a lot of philosophers, for obvious reasons — as time passes, a radical assertion will either be disproven or accepted into the conventional wisdom. Freud is a fine example, I think. The useful concepts he introduced have been so completely absorbed into our intellectual tradition that a modern reading of him turns up nothing but a bunch of obvious platitudes and a lot of whacked-out horseshit. Many important postmodernists have suffered the same fate. So has Marx.

  292. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:25

    a certain Christmas elf–I agree with you, but will say that, for my own intense but ultimately shallow pleasure, nothing beats Derrida when he writes like he did in Postcards/Envois…but it’s fiction-type pleasure, and is only enjoyable given an idiosyncratic and pretty accidental intellectual background: in other words, I don’t recommend it.

  293. Teh King of Comedy said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:27

    Hey, Ruppert Pupkin, put a sock in it. And tell your pal Solly there to cork up his pie-hole too, or I’m gonna Foucalt his kneecaps, ya got it?

  294. mw said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:27

    more of the same.

    All these books, like talk radio, are mental trainers and not supposed to be taken seriously except by the cult of conservatism, the followers. Coutler wrote Slander to insulate the right from being labeled what they most certainly have become – theocratic, fascist, anti-science, homophobic, authoritarian, etc. She told them “Look out the left will call you names”…which in essence makes anything you tell them negative about the cult which uses decriptions, void.

    The right figured out long ago they do not win without changing reality, that is what they must do and this is more of it.

    Jona knows that the right is fascist and what better way to insulate the cult of conservatism’s alternate reality than by this.

    Liberals politically have failed miserably to define conservatism and this is more of making sure that never happens. Though it wouldn’t ever happen anyway, liberals are too stupid to see who the culprit is. They go after individuals or the nebulous “neocons” not the ideology which taking our nation and the world to hell, conservatism. Now we will chase after jona, the left never goes on offense.

    The right can flow as fascist as it pleases now for if you point out how they are just that, fascist, they will say, “Joana told me, it was YOU the liberals.”

    The cult of conservatism marches on…

  295. tigrismus said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:29

    I like cheese.

  296. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:30

    Freud’s insanely wrong about just about everything, too, though.

    But I really don’t think that’s the case, regardless. Good philosophy is rarely reducible to a platitude. Witt’s destruction of solipsism? Hume’s fork?

    I’m saying that Foucault’s work is actually devoid of content, not that it’s passed into folk wisdom.

  297. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:31

    Jillian, I think I see tons of evidence that “Reason” has been re-rooted deeply on the liberal side. There was a time in the 70s and 80s when a lot of bullshit passed into the received wisdom of academia. I think that bullshit failed to hold up over time, and is headed for the heap. Only absolutist thinking would impel one to infer from “there is no absolute Truth” that “there is no truth.”

    Hell yes, some things are false. Some things have evidence, and others less so. There’s good shit and lousy shit. Just because you move beyond Good and Evil doesn’t mean ice cream is no better than horseshit, you know!

    But this sentiment of mine is also “postmodern” in the broad, popular usage sense of the term.

  298. Doodle Bean said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:31

    Just ignore the trolls which are oh so resident here, King. Just put up your feet, make sure the comforter is tucked in around them so you stay warm (if you are in the Northern climes) and just laugh laugh laugh at the Doughy One!

    Look! He’s calling Joe McCarthy a liberal! Hee!

  299. Djur said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:32

    Also, in case it wasn’t clear, I’m aware that Sokal is a Marxian. I don’t have any problem with him. I consider myself both a Marxist and a postmodernist. I don’t have any truck with mysticism and I wholeheartedly embrace science. Just because I don’t accept rationalism doesn’t mean that I favor irrational thinking — quite the opposite.

  300. Trilateral Chairman said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:32

    Jillian, Djur: I don’t know if you’ve come across them, but Chomsky has written some interesting takedowns of postwhateveritis.

  301. Anton Chigurh said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:32

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/19/btsc.tuchman.roadsideprayer/index.html

    I wonder if Gary and Saul live near I-35. It goes right through the heartland! Sorry, I meant Heartland.

  302. J— said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:34

    Jillian, what do you mean by New Left? When I think of the New Left, the first names that come to my mind are E.P. Thompson and the New Left Review.

  303. Fozzetti said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:34

    Hoosier X: Well, we do have concentration camps in the USA, and operate prison camps with extreme conditions… like Guantanamo. But they mostly have Hispanic or Arabic types. Not many white males. If any.

  304. Teh King of Comedy said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:35

    Doodle Bean: Oh, I know. I always skip over their comments. For some demented reason I just wanted to call Gary “Rupert Pupkin.”

  305. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:37

    Yeah, Chomsky and Foucault debated in the 1970s. It is fucking hilarious! Chomsky refuses to play any games, so they talk right past one another. Chomsky wins, if you don’t mind the spoiler. (Most boring netlix choice ever.)

  306. Hoosier X said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:37

    Jillian:

    Ah, such memories those names conjure. Foucault I never really got, but Habermas I eventually found to be pretty awesome. I put The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere in the bibliography for my thesis.

    The only guy in my historiography class who seemed to get Foucault was Ralph Bakshi’s son. He was a Foucault fanatic. (And he also told me how cool it was to be Ralph Bakshi’s son. Like when they made that 1979 Lord of the Rings, they used real people wearing armor for rotoscoping the orcs, and Ralph brought the armor home when they were done filming it, and Preston told me he got to dress up as an orc and run around swinging a sword and screaming.)

  307. El Cid said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:38

    If you read him as a cultural historian, and aren’t looking for philosophies of all knowledge, Foucault is a pretty good read. Discipline and Punish seemed to me like a good enough introduction to a history of prisons, judicial culture, and prison reform in Western culture. Since I wasn’t weighed down with dealing with literary theorists or post-modern circles, that’s how I read it, though I can’t compare it with other cultural studies of prison systems with which I’m unfamiliar. Similarly if you read Said and Orientalism and related texts as cultural, historical, and political history, that to me is where you find its greatest value, unlike social scientists who need to find a testable theory.

    Of course, maybe since I spent a lot of time actual left and liberal circles, in rational discussions of current events, organizing, and historical debate, me and my friends were pretty insulated against the gobbledy-gook debates in pomo circles. We didn’t feel like anything we believed in or cared about or valued had been ‘lost’ with the collapse of the Soviet Union, so we didn’t need to search for some other totalizing alternative.

    The only disagreement I had with Sokal is that Social Text was just not one of the big time arrogant journals or periodicals that really screamed out to me that it should be taken down a peg. But, that’s how things happened, and I guess the general example set was overall more important than the schmucks at Social Text.

  308. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:41

    J-

    New Left.

    I’m one of those who reads the history of counterculture “activism” as a more or less straight line to identity politics, of whose evils we all have blathered about here aplenty in times past.

    Fucking hippies. ;-)

    And one of the seventy-five books I’m working my way through in between work is the transcript of the Chomsky-Foucault debate. Teh funny!

  309. Djur said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:42

    Trilateral, jeff: What’s funny about that is that I’ve found Chomsky to be completely consistent with what I consider to be a postmodern view of history and society. As far as I can tell, the main issue is that ‘postmodernism’ as an actual intellectual endeavor doesn’t exist — it’s just a vague label applied to a broad, amorphous set of disciplines.

  310. Fozzetti said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:42

    J— ! You mean Goldberg is plagerist-ing? wheeeeooooo!

  311. J— said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:43

    Yes, look over the section of the Wikipedia article on the British New Left. Nothing post-structural about it.

  312. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:45

    The problem with reason, jillian, is ultimately that it’s like God; can’t meet the demands placed on the concept.
    My Nietzsche is showing, I suppose, but BushCo obscures the fact that rejecting the primacy of reason isn’t a desire for stupidity, but a recognition of the lack of access to a genuinely value neutral perspective and the admission that we truly function on what’s perhaps best called a pre-reasonable basis.
    (If that makes no sense then I’m right in suspecting I’m too high to be talking about this right now.)

  313. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:48

    J-

    Seriously? Nothing post-something or other about the Frankfurt School? Should I rethink my position that Adorno is a twat (and not a term I use often)?

    Although to be fair, it does seem like the worst abuses of the postblahblahblah world do seem to get enshrined here on my side of the Atlantic, so I’ll refrain from saying much about the British New Left. Perhaps they’re less loopy – I dunno.

  314. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:50

    Reason doesn’t have to be perfect to be valuable, and it’s always preferable to irrationality. I’ve never understood why this is controversial.

  315. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:50

    Djur–Chomsky’s conclusions parallel those of postmodernists, but his arguments are all rationalist and make appeals to what we in the West claim to be our political heritage and goals. In other words, he ain’t a postmodernist.

  316. Djur said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:51

    Christmas elf just basically summed up what I understand as the postmodern critique of rationalism. It has absolutely nothing to do with embracing irrationalism.

  317. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:51

    Sigh….I was born eighty years too late.

  318. What Was That Noise? « chrisfarnsworth.com said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:51

    [...] The author of Bonfire of the Vanities gushed praise for doughy pantload Jonah Goldberg’s book, which takes the novel view that keeping children from working 60-hour weeks in factories is fascist and un-American. [...]

  319. J— said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:52

    Fozzetti: No. I just checked the source a certain Christmas elf shared above (the DeGregori article). Here’s what Goldberg was drawing from:

    From the work of the French scholar Jean-Pierre Faye, Harrington noted (as did Loren Goldner) that the “key words of the vocabulary of postmodernism (deconstructionism, logocentrism) actually had their origins in antiscience tracts written by Nazi and protofascist writers like Ernst Krieck and Lugwig Klages” (Harrington 1996, 211-212; Goldner 2001). “Dekonstrucktion was first used in a Nazi psychiatry journal edited by the cousin of Hermann Goering” (Goldner 2001).

    He should’ve cited the exact page (p.23) in DeGregori’s text, but he is citing his source. What he did not do was track down what appears to be the original source for all this “Göring’s cousin is Derrida’s intellectual father!” nonsense—Faye’s book. But one cannot expect too much of Jonah the Jenius, can one?

  320. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:52

    Djur – sorry, but that just isn’t persuasive. Baby/bathwater arguments rarely are.

  321. Djur said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:55

    Jillian: What isn’t persuasive?

  322. r€nato said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:55

    Many on the left talk of destroying ‘whiteness’

    Really? “Many”? Names, please?

    Because I can’t think of a single lefty whom I know personally or have heard of, who talks of destroying ‘whiteness’.

    I’m going to go long on hay – Jonah’s straw consumption is sure to drive the price of that commodity sky-high.

  323. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:55

    No, you’re right , Jillian, about Adorno, Horkheimer, et al being anti-Enlightenment and so on. They’re just an earlier, less glib incarnation–in the Marxian Critical Theory tradition, rather than the decontruction tradition. And then there is the pretty upstanding and wonderful Habermas, who has moved away from high theory towards pragmatism…He wrote a book, “Theory of Communicative Action,” that I find really awesome, and which transcends left/right tags altogether.

  324. OxyCon said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:55

    I could feel myself getting stupider and stupider the more I read. I think I’ll go and eat some paint chips or suck on some of my kid’s lead based toys now.

  325. gbear said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:56

    I wonder if Gary and Saul live near I-35

    OMG! I live about 4 blocks from 35. I haven’t seen anyone out on the road praying, or noticed any improvement in traffic flow either. I bet the TX group started out thinking that they’d travel up 35 and pray in every state along the way, then realized that it is 15 degrees in MN and got on the phone to churches upstream. Too bad they weren’t on 35W in Minneapolis a few months back.

    By the way, 35 north of the Twin Cities is basically the same route as Dylan’s Highway 61. Most of the time you can see 61 from 35.

  326. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:57

    Hell, Marxism by definition is inherently all about recognizing the limitations of reason. Liberal economics portrays itself as being the perfect expression of reasoned market interactions between reasoning people, and it – from a Marxist perspective – fails time and again. But you don’t reject reason when you encounter results like that, you just have a lolcat moment and declare “Reason: your doin it wrong”. Then you go back and try again.

    Someone make that Lolcat for me now. Pretty please?

  327. Fozzetti said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:57

    I have a couple of Chomsky books. Think I’ll go get some more, but I’ll pay cash. Maybe wear a disguise.

  328. mikey said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:58

    Hi, my name’s mikey, and I’d just like to share with the group.

    I’ve totally lost interest.

    G’night…

    mikey

  329. Chris Wren said,

    December 20, 2007 at 3:58

    Just FYI, they’re teaching “Post-Postmodernist studies” now at the local university. But they’re so out of touch. Post-Postmodernism is SO 2004.

  330. Herville "Bud" Melman said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:03

    The white liberal is the fascist of Jewish whaledom.

  331. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:03

    Djur, arguing that reason has limits doesn’t persuade me that some of the things I’ve seen come out of post-movements are justifiable, like Luce Irigaray arguing for special women’s use of language that boys just don’t get (which is irrational), or that the Enlightenment was a patriarchal pogrom of oppressing the Other.

    If all postmodernism has to say about reason is that “it fails sometimes, you know”, then – like I said before – it’s being banal. If it’s saying that reason doesn’t work, full stop, then it’s being insane. Either way, it’s not adding anything useful to the discussion that wasn’t there before, and is cluttering it up with a lot of terminology that is devoid of semantic content.

    What’s with all these kids on my lawn, anyway?

  332. Ghost of Levinas said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:04

    Wow Saul, way to really miss the point and really shit on my grave.

  333. gbear said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:04

    I’m with Mikey. I think there’s still time tonight to go revisit Hwy 61.

  334. Jennifer said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:04

    Christmas elf – I am she.

    I stepped away to bake some cookies. For those guys I have to tell what to do everyday. Every little bit helps.

    By the way, Eric Idle has a song where he says for you to go f*** yourself. Seriously, he does.

  335. r€nato said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:04

    I think the real question in all of this is why Doubleday agreed to publish this crap.

    Mommy haz cunekshuns.

  336. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:06

    See this conversation?

    This is why I can’t get a date.

    Seriously.

  337. Jennifer said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:08

    Since I haven’t read enough of any of this stuff to know what the hell y’all are talking about, I’ll just say that even though Freud may have been wrong about everything, he still came up with “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” so his work cannot have been entirely in vain.

  338. djangone said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:09

    Two ‘Indeed…’ sentence constructions in the same paragraph, passive constructions everywhere. Jonah’s trying really hard for that blue ribbon in the local high school newspaper editorial award show.

  339. J— said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:09

    Intellectuals identified with the British New Left drew on the Frankfurt School because its members’ writings helped them address issues of power. But they used it for a historical Marxist analysis they insisted helped them discover or understand social experience. In other words, there’s a modernist confidence in reason, rationality, and discoverable truth, as well a commitment to the creation of grand narratives, albeit (at the time) alternative ones.

    I’m with you on the U.S. New Left’s responsibility in building the foundation for the identity politics leaning tower we have today on this side of the Atlantic.

  340. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:09

    Mikey’s pissed!

  341. gbear said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:09

    Jennifer, you ever heard the song The Israelites by Desmond Dekker? It’s from the mid 60′s and was a top 40 hit. One of the lines is “wife and my kids, dey fuck off and-a leave me”. He sings it with such a strong staccato that radio stations didn’t catch it.

  342. J— said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:12

    gbear: Thanks to Goldberg, I now know Dekker’s song is actually about white males.

  343. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:13

    Hey, look! It’s lefties, and we’re hating on America!

    Yay us!

    Identity politics is teh suck.

  344. J— said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:14

    But we love historical materialism! What’s a poor passing wingnut to do?

  345. HTML Fascist said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:15

    You can use <div style=”clear:both”></div> under the text part of your post if you wanna make sure that the images don’t barge down into the comments section/other posts (I’m assuming that’s what all those ugly <br>s are about).

    You’ll notice that Hitler’s writings also had a lot of whitespace at the bottom. Coincidence?

  346. Jennifer said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:16

    gbear – oh, Eric Idle makes sure you can hear it all.

    Listen here. The Official Anthem of the War on Christmas.

  347. gbear said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:16

    oops. I should know better than to fact check post-post. All the lyric sites say he’s saying ‘pack up’ instead of ‘fuck off’. I like my version and I’m going to stick with it, no matter what the facts are.

  348. MileHi Hawkeye said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:17

    Sorry to interrupt, but is this Intro to Judaism?

  349. El Cid said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:20

    You often get weird intellectual movements when the main new currents are issued from a relatively small and isolated group of thinkers, currents which are then hungrily picked up by larger numbers of people elsewhere who, for whatever reasons, are looking for something different.

    That, I think, is one of the great things about the blog developments — you’re just not going to have that lag, that divergent isolated group of thinkers and the circles who later pick up lines of thought that don’t hold up so strongly.

    Before these blogs etc., beyond most of our awareness a turd of a book like this would spread from its circle of origin outward, and then one day out of the blue we would become aware that some mass media institution like a magazine or set of magazines or a radio show or set of pundits were talking about “liberal fascism,” and we’d all be like, “what?”, and would soon find out that it had to do with this 400 page collection of dried colonic expulsions, but by then it would be too late, it would have been treated for too long like some new approach worthy of discussion, and our collective cries of affliction would likely not really be listened to for years.

  350. J— said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:20

    Sorry to interrupt, but is this Intro to Judaism?

    If you’re a white male, MileHi Hawkeye, you don’t need an intro. If you’re not and you do, ask a white male.

  351. gbear said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:22

    Oh Jennifer, What a splendid song! What a wonderful song! What a perfectly remarkable song! I want to put it on an endless loop at work.

  352. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:26

    My friend came by to visit at an inopportune time, alas. Now he feels ignored while I’m typing.
    Quickly, then, Jennifer, you and I were the main moonbats at scrutator. i’d say my normal name and you’d know me but I’m in semi-disguise as the source of the pantloads leak. Good to see you’ve finally made it here.
    jillian- the problem, from a nietzschean perspective as i see it, is that reason has outstripped its bounds to a degree even marxists do not recognize
    human existence is not inherently reasonable, it is not inherently any one thing at all
    reason, as i see it, is one instinct among many, which has been overindulged for millenia
    but i’m being rude

  353. Jason said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:27

    None of the tripe in this “book” would even get a passing grade if it was submitted in a freshman class at any accredited college, anywhere.

    The simple fact remains: a common tendency seen in first-year writing is using words like “hugely” to modify something. Let me put it this way: no serious person would deny that FYC writers often use similar words, such as “largely” or “diametrically,” to pad the length of essays.

  354. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:28

    Q: What did one postmodernist say to the other postmodernist?

    A: Whatever you said was predetermined from your the social/sexual/cultural milieu that you totally shaped and formed every aspect of your reality, without you knowing it.

    Picasso: Get outta my fucking way, I’m trying to finish Guernica.

  355. Anton Chigurh said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:28

    gbear – presume you are in austin. That city needs the prayin’. It is a bastion of liberal – wait, I mean fascist – lies and anti-americanism. Love 6th street and barton springs though!

  356. Trilateral Chairman said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:31

    The problem with reason, jillian, is ultimately that it’s like God; can’t meet the demands placed on the concept….we truly function on what’s perhaps best called a pre-reasonable basis.

    You know, I have yet to encounter anyone who disagrees with this idea (with the possible exception of the Randroids). More to the point, most of the scientists I know are forced to acknowledge the limitations of reason (and empirical investigation, and rational inquiry, etc.) on a regular basis. We all know that we can’t rule out *every* alternative hypothesis, that we can never *really* prove that Descartes’s evil genius wasn’t messing with us, and so on. So we adopt axioms: We assume that there is no evil genius, that reason can tell us something about the world, because otherwise we have no way to proceed and are forced to wallow in ignorance.

    Reason, etc., are difficult, time-consuming, and tedious, and it would be nice if someone came up with a better way to learn about the world. So far, nobody has, and we are stuck with the long hard slog.

    As for our pre-reasonable basis, it depends on what you mean. Obviously, nobody catches a baseball by calculating velocity, air resistance, etc., and applying the relevant equations. A lot of our actions are intuitive or heuristic, for lack of better words, because intuition and heuristics are *fast*. They’re just not always accurate–as reason itself can demonstrate (Kahnemann won the Nobel Prize for doing just this).

    If all postmodernism has to say about reason is that “it fails sometimes, you know”, then – like I said before – it’s being banal. If it’s saying that reason doesn’t work, full stop, then it’s being insane.

    Yes, exactly. A former professor of mine put it fairly well: How do you *know* that reason doesn’t work? If you can put together an argument, then you have implicitly accepted the utility of reason. If you claim that no argument is possible, then I have no way to know if you’re right, since (as noted earlier) nobody has ever figured out a good alternative to reason.

    Chomsky, of course, makes these points much more thoroughly than I just did [damnit].

  357. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:31

    reason, as i see it, is one instinct among many, which has been overindulged for millenia

    Do you sell parachutes and aircraft ?

  358. Nelly said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:31

    Incontinentia Buttocks-

    Thank you for the correction. Blogdom can bring out the worst in me (i.e. a newfound comfort with glib assertion). I will now part ways with this lovely blog and , when the time availability allows, look more closely into the Schmidt-Straussian connection.

  359. gbear said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:32

    little further north than Austin. I’m in St Paul, MN. I liked Austin too when I was there for a couple days in ’85.

  360. gbear said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:34

    There is also Austin, MN. They invented and manufacture SPAM there. Honest to god. That calls for some prayers.

  361. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:35

    We all know that we can’t rule out *every* alternative hypothesis.

    Hold this blob of molten glass in your hands while I find my blow pipe.

  362. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:38

    And thus, my problem with Nietzsche.

    Who gives a fart what “human existence”, at some metaphysical level, is? And why is that a good reason to look askance at reason? I mean, I love philosophy, but sometimes the angels and pinheads really start to get on my nerves. Don’t read too much into it – I’m grouchy because it’s midterms and I have technology problems. Sorry for the grumpiness on my part.

  363. Mona said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:39

    Um, I’ve joined in the ridicule of Jonah’s inane book, but it is true that Margaret Sanger was a racist eugenicist, and Progressives of that era helped usher in beverage-alcohol Prohibition. Stick to the (many) areas in which Jonah is full of shit.

  364. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:40

    Gah. Reason isn’t an instinct. If it were, we wouldn’t teach classes in formal logic.

    When’s the last time you took a class in eating, or shitting, or fucking? THOSE are instincts. Reason is damnably hard.

  365. Trilateral Chairman said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:40

    Jennifer said,

    I’ll just say that even though Freud may have been wrong about everything, he still came up with “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” so his work cannot have been entirely in vain.

    True (though the quotation undercuts the rest of his work–*when* is a cigar just a cigar? How do we know?). He also thought that we’d one day be able to explain everything in neurological terms, which is interesting too (though still probably wrong).

  366. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:40

    How do you *know* that reason doesn’t work?

    When the football keeps turning into the Andromeda Galaxy at the 20 yard line.

  367. thelogos said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:41

    The problem with reason, jillian, is ultimately that it’s like God; can’t meet the demands placed on the concept….we truly function on what’s perhaps best called a pre-reasonable basis.

    You know, I have yet to encounter anyone who disagrees with this idea (with the possible exception of the Randroids). More to the point, most of the scientists I know are forced to acknowledge the limitations of reason (and empirical investigation, and rational inquiry, etc.) on a regular basis. We all know that we can’t rule out *every* alternative hypothesis, that we can never *really* prove that Descartes’s evil genius wasn’t messing with us, and so on. So we adopt axioms: We assume that there is no evil genius, that reason can tell us something about the world, because otherwise we have no way to proceed and are forced to wallow in ignorance.

    Hi! I’m someone who disagrees with that idea and is not a randoid.

    Reason doesn’t have to be perfect, like the myths about god, nothing in nature ever is. It just has to work well enough, and I suspect that it has been for many thousands of years.

    That being said, most people have a pretty narrow scope when it comes to understanding reason.

  368. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:43

    And Mona highlights why I don’t like classical “Progressives” all that much, either.

    Holy cow! When did I become such a crochety old stick?

  369. thelogos said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:43

    Not all philosophy is rubbish, Jillian. Try the pragmatism (but I’d stay away from Rorty he’s more pomo than useful).

  370. gbear said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:44

    When’s the last time you took a class in eating, or shitting, or fucking?

    You trying to tell me that my school isn’t like everyone else’s?

  371. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:47

    I honestly don’t think philosophy is rubbish. I just get cranky sometimes. Marx is yummy, and so is Rawls, and Hume, and Locke is just a hot mess, which is fascinating on its own.

    I was a philosophy major for a year or two, until I came to my senses.

    I kid, I kid!

  372. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:48

    Progressives of that era helped usher in beverage-alcohol Prohibition.

    The Temperance Movement was a womens’ movement which had the specific aim of stopping wife beating and murder and child abuse due to alcohol abuse by men. Read your history.

  373. Syndicalist said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:49

    Zola
    (in admiration of Leonard Peirce)

    My mother called my cell down in old Soho
    Said “I got you on TV!! Even though you don’t know
    Shit from shinola!”
    Know shit from shinola…

    She went down to Bergdorff’s and bought me new pants,
    She knew that dark-blue dress could give me my last chance
    On a payroll-a
    To be on a payroll-a.

    But now I write for N.R.O and the L.A. Times
    Non-Star Trek books on my desk all have unbroken spines,
    And stains from cola–
    Well, cheetos and cola.

    That brings me to my long-awaited fascism book,
    I show that Goering was a secret Tassajara Bread cook
    And made granola,
    Heard “culture,” grabbed granola.

    And I’m pretty dumb but I still understand
    That the author of “J’Accuse” was a right-wing man.
    Oh my Zola, Emile Zo-zo-zo-la….

    Well, I sat up with my laptop by electric light,
    Years behind but I was CAREFUL to write
    The airtight argument as it came to me:
    “Arbeit macht Freiheit! Love, Hillary.”

    The librul fascists say the white guy is a Jew,
    I’m like a modern Captain Dreyfus, ‘cause now I’m two for two!
    But wait—I’m Zola… yes, I’m my own Zola!
    Zola, zo-zo-zo-zo Zola zo-zo-zo-zo Zola

    Didn’t read Isaiah Berlin
    Hegel was just a weird throw-in
    Got him somewhere on my floor
    I’ll get down on my knees…
    Aha! “The real is rational, like organic cheese!!”

    Well that’s just what a liberal fascist would say
    And my doppelganger Emile would see it that way oh yes Zola
    Zo-zo-zo-zo Zola

    Left is really right, when it’s Adolph and Joe,
    You see its communist and fascist, and you should also know
    It made Ebola, Yep the left made Ebola.

    Well, I don’t believe in “numinous” blacks,
    You wouldn’t need “civil rights” if we had a flat tax,
    But now I’m crucified by Sadly, No!,
    Mommy, why’d you build that wall so damn low?!!

    Strolling through third-grade it’s a horrible sight
    A Swarthmore bitch waging Kashi-kampf, but I’ll set it right
    Because I’m Zola
    Zo-zo-zo-zo Zola zo-zo-zo-zo Zola
    Zola zo-zo-zo-zo Zola zo-zo-zo-zo zola

  374. Jennifer said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:50

    True (though the quotation undercuts the rest of his work–*when* is a cigar just a cigar? How do we know?).

    IIRC, a cigar is just a cigar if Freud is the one smoking it, and a journalist is asking him the significance of his attachment to smoking it.

  375. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:51

    Progressivism was a broad movement – broad enough to encompass the socialist Helen Keller and the crapsack Woodrow Wilson. From my perspective, the Keller/Addams end of Progressivism did some awesome things, whilst the Roosevelt/Wilson end of Progressivism should be launched from a cannon into the sun.

    Apparently, I don’t like anything today. I think I need a hug.

  376. Patkin said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:51

    Muslims are just like US Christianists, wanting religious control of the state and women kept barefoot and pregnant.

    Yeah, let’s make a blanket condemnation of a group, that’ll really show the guys claiming “the Muslims” are flying plains (perhaps in Spain, mainly in the rain), instead of just the general sort of asshole who’d perform the same act whether Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist.

  377. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:52

    I don’t mean any kind reactionary negation of the benefits of reason, or denial of its value or utility. Nietzsche didn’t either, tho that gets lost in the wash of his passions too easily.
    I guess I’m just not open to universalizing.

  378. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:53

    But are you completely not open to universalizing, or are you not open to it only in specific circumstances?

  379. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:56

    Reason isn’t an instinct. If it were, we wouldn’t teach classes in formal logic.

    Not true. Lots of different animals can easily do basic tests of logic. Cats do it all the time. We try to fool them. They suss us out.

  380. Mysticdog said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:56

    “See this conversation?

    This is why I can’t get a date.”

    Really? That’s the hawtest thing I’ve read in ages.

    Oh crap… that might be why I can’t get a date…

  381. Jennifer said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:56

    Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle; Hobbes was fond of his dram, and Rene Descartes was a drunken fart I drink therefore I am.

  382. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:58

    Hugs for Jillian who rocks and is awesome and is a great host!

  383. Mona said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:59

    ,i>The Temperance Movement was a womens’ movement which had the specific aim of stopping wife beating and murder and child abuse due to alcohol abuse by men. Read your history.

  384. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:59

    And when cats can do calculus, I’ll be persuaded.

    Reason is hard to do well. Many living things can do it in part. None do it well consistently. Only humans can do it well at all, and we fail at that almost all the time.

  385. Hoosier X said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:59

    That the American Taliban isn’t flying planes into buildings only shows that they don’t want it bad enough.

    When the Islamofascists triumph, the Christofascists can only hang their heads in shame that they just didn’t have the nuts to be the best darn religious fanatics on the planet.

    We’ll just have to suck it up, shrug our shoulders, put on our approved Sharia headgear, and say, “The Muslims wanted it more. God was on their side” as we turn to Mecca.

  386. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:02

    Hehehe.
    That touches on the central tension of perspectivism; how is it more than relativism without becoming dogmatic?
    To answer the question, tho I’m a philosophy student, I’m not a metaphysician. I can give you no all is x formulation.
    I don’t find it useful to challenge the accepted scientific definition of empirical reality, for example, cuz, well, duh, but that doesn’t science itself isn’t inflected in ways we inherently cannot recognize by the nature of our existence.

  387. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:02

    Reason isn’t an instinct. If it were, we wouldn’t teach classes in formal logic.

    Sadly, No. We must teach classes in formal logic because humans are instinctively imbued with such a perfect understanding of reason and logic that they are impeccable liars. Lying is the act of subverting our instinctive understanding of cause and effect so as to make us thing that what did not happen, happened; or what happened, did not happen.

  388. Mona said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:03

    Oops, that post did not work, I menat:
    The Temperance Movement was a womens’ movement which had the specific aim of stopping wife beating and murder and child abuse due to alcohol abuse by men. Read your history.

    They were not only temperance advocates, but along with various religionists, a key prong in passing beverage-alcohol prohibition, I note that SN authors often joke about needing to drink after reading this or that right-wing screed, and recall one admitting to a hang-over. I guess SN isn’t Progressive, then.

  389. Trilateral Chairman said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:06

    Reason doesn’t have to be perfect, like the myths about god, nothing in nature ever is. It just has to work well enough, and I suspect that it has been for many thousands of years.

    Hi! I actually think I’m agreeing with you on this. The Randroids are the only people I’ve encountered who (seem to) think that reason is all there is and is the perfect tool for figuring out everything.

    Maybe I misunderstood the original poster–not sure now.

  390. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:06

    bwock, bwock, philosophy-boy! I’m calling you out (in good fun only, of course, and with deepest affection).

    “Ways we inherently cannot recognize” is an appeal to faith. If I won’t take it from a Christian (“of course, God answers all prayers!”), then why would I take it from you?

  391. Arky - Fascistanata said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:08

    When’s the last time you took a class in eating, or shitting, or fucking?

    I suspect there’d be a long wait list if a university offered classes on the latter.

  392. Thursday said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:13

    This book may just be the print version of the famed “Bananas = God” video. It’s a 400+ page feast for flies!

    (Also known as “Evolutionists Greatest Nightmare” for those not in the know.)

  393. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:13

    When’s the last time you took a class in eating, or shitting, or fucking?

    When is the last time an aboriginal person took a class in anything? The premise that a person must take a class in reason or ‘formal logic’ means, by definition, that a person who does not take the course (and pass it), does not possess any understanding of reason and ‘formal logic.”

    Good luck with that.

  394. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:15

    If it’s an appeal to any kind of faith, it’s faith in the fallibility of humanity.
    Less glibly, science is inherently self-questioning, which I like about it, and has only in the last… what, century or two, begun to truly overcome the limits of our own senses. Who is to say we won’t, if we don’t kill ourselves off, eventually discover new and quite important ways we were wrong in what will contextually seem like a flat earth kind of mistake? In many ways it seems almost certain we will. We still have a lot to learn about light, for example.

  395. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:16

    Hey Mr. Watts, common sense isn’t common, and we actually need instruction in logic if we are to avoid the mistakes made over and over again by people who think with their gut.

  396. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:16

    If people are so good at logic naturally, how come more of them aren’t atheists?

    There’s a wide, wide realm between “limited understanding” and “any understanding at all”. But keep moving those goalposts – it’s good exercise.

  397. jnfr said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:16

    Patkin @ 4:51 is right, of course, and I’ll be more careful with my insults in the future. I let the trolls get to me.

  398. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:17

    Who is to say we won’t, if we don’t kill ourselves off, eventually discover new and quite important ways we were wrong in what will contextually seem like a flat earth kind of mistake? In many ways it seems almost certain we will. We still have a lot to learn about light, for example.

    And that, my dear elf, is an appeal to ignorance. I was born knowing that is a logical fallacy, because logic is instinctive.

  399. edub said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:19

    Who knew that a post about the stupidity of Doughload Ickypants would turn into a MENSA dating thread?

    Sadly, NOt me!

  400. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:20

    Cuz they had the living poop scared out of em at a young and impressionable age, jillian.
    I was spared, so I have always found it funny that most people around me believe they have an invisible spirit double whut’s immortal and will either go be with jebus and the little babies when we die or to burn eternally in lava cuz God is luv.

  401. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:24

    Not appeal, acknowledgment. I’m not arguing against acceptance of science, or for some kind of deep rooted doubt. I’m sayin the scientific method is right to never take any result as absolutely certain.

  402. billy pilgrim said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:25

    While some Progressives MAY have supported the Temperance movement for various reasons, here in Milwaukee the local progressives and socialists were building parks, sewers, raising wages and establishing public health services.

    When Prohibition came into effect, Milwaukee was the center of the home brewing movement; every block still smelled like a brewery, but it was coming from basements…. the powers that be looked the other way, for the most part, because alcohol was a huge part of the heritage.

    So not ALL progressives were out there pushing Temperance. The Progressive movement has always been akin to herding cats.

    Drink up, fascists!

  403. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:27

    I bet, if Jennifer is still around, she know who I was by now.
    I think I geeked out like this at scrutator a couple times.

  404. gaspode said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:28

    The christofascists don’t have to fly plains (in Spain on the rainy plains) into buildings.

    They prefer to drop white phosphorous bombs onto residential districts in Falluja from thousands of feet up.

    Many hugs Jillian!

    Watcha doin Friday? Wanna see a movie? Maybe get some Thai food?

  405. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:28

    Jeff — who thinks with their gut ? We all think with our brains. The human instinct to tell lies is just as deeply and finely evolved as the human instinct to discern the truth. Lying is perhaps the key survival tool of all plants and animals. Camouflage is lying. Camouflage says, “I am not here.” Viceroy butterflies lie to birds by looking like Monarch butterflies. Telling a lie is critical to survival of any animal or plant, so obviously, the ability to tell lies and to discern truth from lies has evolved and been refined to an enormous degree in humans.

  406. Thursday said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:30

    *pedant alert*

    I’m sayin the scientific method is right to never take any result as absolutely certain.

    Depends on what’s being asked: physics frequently has definite answers. The results of certain actions in certain environments will react in a predictable way every time. If there’s a change in results, then you know there has been a change in circumstances leading to it.

    There’s a whole lot of stuff we know for certain using scientific method. Don’t misrepresent, boi!

    *end of pedantry*

  407. Hoosier X said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:31

    The Goldberg Affair has provoked me to put stuff on my blog again.

    It has a Marshal McLuhan quote. (Is that a selling point?)

  408. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:35

    And none of that has anything to do with using logic correctly, which almost no one can do.

    See for yourself, if you doubt me.

    Actual logical thinking is unbelievably hard. Even with practice and training, few people do it correctly, and nobody does it correctly and consistently.

  409. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:35

    Yah, but what is known, in truth, is what happened at that moment. I may well be wrong, but one thing I’ve heard physicists say is that the laws of physics themselves can differ at points in the universe, such as the edge of black holes.
    Science is content to do the most difficult feat I think humanity has yet found for itself; to dwell in uncertainty. Science doesn’t really say “this is x”, but rather, “in all the times we’ve looked, we’ve found this to be x, so it’s pretty safe to say this is x, but we’ve been wrong before, which is to say if you see something different maybe we shouldn’t automatically assume you were wrong to say this is y”. Probability isn’t certainty.

  410. Gus said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:36

    The fact of the matter of the bottom line is that Gary Ruppert and Saul are the same.

  411. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:36

    The link is seriously fun – trust me. I’ll be surprised if anyone who doesn’t know how the game works already does very well on it, and I already know y’all are some smart mofos.

  412. Thursday said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:37

    Heh – I think “The medium is the message” would be appropriate for anything coming from Regenery…

  413. chunder! said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:37

    PAUL DE MAN WERE A NAZI!

    There. That proves everything.

  414. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:41

    but one thing I’ve heard physicists say is that the laws of physics themselves can differ at points in the universe, such as the edge of black holes.

    That would be wrong.

  415. El Cid said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:41

    Your continual efforts to refine your understanding and reach toward an impossible goal of complete insight is the height of liberal fascism.

    This is different than the type of fascism which arose with the French revolution and with grade school teachers. However, we need to understand what it is I mean when I say this. And this is a central part of my point.

  416. Thursday said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:41

    ACCE -

    I repeat: a change in results lets you know there was a change in the circumstances. Like, for instance, the edges of black holes.

    Without knowing how something will react in a given circumstances, there would be no invention. Every machine we have – everything we require to repeat an action – is a result of the certainty of the results of circumstance. That certainty is a result of scientific method.

    That there is also uncertainty is where it gets fun!

  417. Smut Clyde said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:41

    we are disgusted by the set-asides for the undeserving who are only leaches and contribute nothing
    When the undeserving finally seize the levers of power (not to mention the steering-wheel of privilege), I look forward to the pleasure of describing the new global order as the Leachate.

  418. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:42

    Douglas Watts,

    I absolutely reject the genetic fallacy that because human reason is dependent upon earliler evolutionary adaptations, that we cannot reason abstractly according to formally logical rules. It is probably the case that we have only discovered logic incidentally, after millenia of evolution prior to abstract language acquisistion; however, it is wrong to somehow take the prehistory of the brain as an argument against atemporal logics.

    I really don’t understand what plants lying has to do with anything, or even if that means anything.

  419. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:44

    but one thing I’ve heard physicists say is that the laws of physics themselves can differ at points in the universe, such as the edge of black holes.

    The very strange effects postulated to exist at the event horizon of a black hole are precisely because the laws of physics do not change at the event horizon of a black hole, or for an object with a velocity of 99.99 percent the speed of light.

  420. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:45

    Jeff – try the game. Seriously! Everyone should try it. It’s always fun to watch how crushed people get when they completely cock it up.

  421. Lothario said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:46

    He didn’t say certain, he said “absolutely certain”– and that’s a different thing.
    John Dewey is really good on this in “Essays in Experimental Logic,” and (on the issue of faith and reason) “A Common Faith.” Dewey makes the crucial point not to confuse the products of method (e.g. definite answers in physics) with the method by which they are produced and tested. The whole point of the method is to generate certainties, but no certainty so generated is absolutely exempt from the possibility (however hard to project) of being retested and reassessed.

  422. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:50

    I think my java blocker screwed up grading my results of jillian’s logic test, but I got two right, and in both of the other two my mistake was leaving a card unchecked.

  423. Thursday said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:52

    Jillian -

    I tried it and got 3 out of four. Then I was told that they had been answered zero times correctly! Of course, they had been answered zero times incorrectly, too.

    Logic they may have; but I fear for their numeracy.

  424. gbear said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:52

    Jillian, I bit. I got the filing cabinet question wrong because I didn’t realize that there were no alphabet restrictions on the other cabinets. pisser. Got the other three right. Do I get ice cream now?

  425. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:53

    Nobody *ever* gets that test right.

    I’m kinda surprised you didn’t, though, elfie. It’s pretty basic formal logic. The whole thing is based on two logical structures with standard Latin names that I don’t want to say because then it will give away the whole game.

  426. edub said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:54

    Just for fun, go back to the original screenshot of Jonah’s book (long trip north, I know) and read it again, this time substituting the word “fascist” for “liberal.”

    Since liberals = fascists, it makes sense.

    It’s fun, really!

    Like this:

    “today’s fascists use a secularized vocabulary of ‘hope’. . .”

    “while fascists who remember the civil rights movement acknowledge that the churches played a role”. . . .

    “today’s fascist fascism eschews talk of Christianity”. . .

    It’s starting to make sense, finally.

  427. Nelly said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:55

    Jillian-

    It is my unfortunate contention/hunch that “good” Progressivism, whenever it is enshrined by way of law and/or regulation, eventually leads to “bad” Progressivism, given the very nature of political power (“Oh no, you’re not one of those Public Choice Theory freaks!” “Yes, I am”). This is why I end up disagreeing with all my liberal/lefty friends about virtually everything, even though I love nearly everything they love and hate nearly everything they hate. It’s a frustrating place to be.

  428. Jennifer said,

    December 20, 2007 at 5:57

    Ya, I remember you Elf, though I don’t remember what handle you used over at the ol’ Scrutator.

  429. Smut Clyde said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:00

    Apparently, I don’t like anything today. I think I need a hug.

    No, no, you should be writing a 400-page book.
    For Baldurmas, I would like a Greasemonkey script that goes through trollposts and replaces every occurrence of the word ‘Homeland’ with ‘Heimat’.

  430. Thursday said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:01

    Lothario –

    There comes a point where the result can be comfortably considered “absolutely certain”, I think.

    Water will boil when it reaches 100 degrees centigrade at sea level – unless circumstances change. Test and retest it as often as you like, the results aren’t going to change.

    I could get sillier with the examples (a gun, when fired, will not turn to a live chicken), but the thought is the same. With a different audience, ie. one of specialists, then the vocabulary of the specialist can be used without misunderstanding. But for a general audience, the difference between “absolute certainty” and “certainty” is negligible at best.

  431. Smut Clyde said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:02

    Make that ‘Heartland’.

  432. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:03

    I haven’t had much need for formal logic in over a decade. I have to brush up on it this spring to pass the logic exam as part of the entrance to the phd portion of the program. I will say if I had known I were getting tested tonight, I’d have been sober for the exam. I probably still would have missed the 7, tho. That one has some weird voodoo blind spot.

  433. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:06

    Ok, Jillian, I took the test. In Goldberg fashion, let me just say that my results illustrate my point that logic is a skill acquired with study–not part of our evolutionary inheritance.

    (I got 0 out of 4 right.)

  434. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:07

    But yeah, I’m pretty much pathologically conditioned to respond to if/then formulations. I recognized whut was what, just high, I guess.

  435. Lesley said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:10

    I got three out of four right and could kick myself for the one I got wrong…very sloppy on my part. (Doesn’t seem like a particularly difficult test. Is it supposed to be?)

  436. MTS said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:11

    Two things:

    A) numinousness? It was hard even to find a definition, but the definition of numinous I was able to locate was: 1. Mysterious; awe-inspiring.
    2. Characterized by the sense of a deity’s presence. I have some black friends I think very highly of, but I wouldn’t go that far. I don’t think that word means what he thinks it means.

    B) Does he ever say, anywhere, just exactly what he thinks society should look like? Should we all smoke and refrain from exercise? Is child labor OK after all? Should we repeal the Pure Food and Drug Act?

  437. a certain Christmas elf said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:12

    Was just my first name over at scrutator, Jennifer, startin with a b. I’m probably being silly keeping the mask on, as there’s nothing much Doughbob can do, but it keeps the narrative flow going, and who knows, somebody might like the minor mystery of not knowing.

  438. islmfaoscist said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:17

    Mr. Pantsload seems to cleverly avoid making any effort to define his terms, they just slither around like a taint by association between historical personalities.

    It’s not even necessary to go as far as Naomi Wolf and list 10 defining characteristics of fascism, just pick one or two.

  439. Smut Clyde said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:19

    The very strange effects postulated to exist at the event horizon of a black hole are precisely because the laws of physics do not change at the event horizon of a black hole
    There are no strange effects at the event horizon of a black hole… The freely-falling observer is not aware of crossing it. [insert footnote citing John A. Wheeler]
    This is irrelevant to the point of a different Elf’s argument, I know. It may even strengthen it.

  440. Arky - Fascistanata said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:25

    I gotta say, I read back through the Excerpt o Ignorance and then changed the cat boxes. This gave me an excellent idea for a book that Random Haus/Doublewide is sure to love!

  441. Smut Clyde said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:34

    Blue Buddha said,
    Proverbs 13:12 – [...] when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life.

    The Frau Doktorin tells me the same thing, though there may be an element of flattery involved.

  442. Nelly said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:38

    Hate to brag or anything, but I got all four correct :)

    That said, the cabinet one was a bitch, simply because it’s hard to tell exactly what the scenario is. Are you supposed to assume the staffer that screwed up the S’s screwed up ALL the S’s or only some of them? And was he/she the ONLY staffer who worked on the S’s? I decided to assume the bare minimum, which in this case meant only assuming what they give you, which in turn meant assuming I’m not supposed to know for certain how many of the S’s got screwed up. Sheesh.

  443. pedestrian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:40

    It was hard even to find a definition, but the definition of numinous I was able to locate was: 1. Mysterious; awe-inspiring.
    2. Characterized by the sense of a deity’s presence. I have some black friends I think very highly of, but I wouldn’t go that far. I don’t think that word means what he thinks it means.

    You forget Rush Limbaugh, who is probably also a Liberal… somehow.

  444. Abraham said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:44

    Gary and I are right, you liberals are all a bunch of traitors who would ally with the islamo-fascists in the event of invasion on American soil. We in the Heartland and all Patriotic Americans will fight you liberals and your muslim allies tooth and nail when the invasion occurs, and you and your muslim allies will be soundly defeated.

    If I may have the pleasure of taking you seriously, sir. What gives you the idea that a group of secular humanists would ally with a group of religious extremists? The two groups could not be more different. Suggesting that I would ally with Islamic extremists is almost a personal insult. If I knew you in person I would feel compelled to ask for satisfaction for that remark.

  445. Potato Head said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:55

    Jillian: Got all 4 tests right. I was worried that I was missing something and they weren’t all the same underlying problem, but since they were, I aced it. The explanation of the psychological phenomenon being tested was interesting. Being a liberal, I’m unconcerned about cheaters, so maybe that’s why I saw every problem the same way. ;-)

  446. Me said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:57

    I have yet to read one of those excerpts all the way through, and I don’t plan on doing it. So you just knock yourselves out, Gavin et al. I’m gonna have to take your word for what it actually says.

  447. Auguste said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:57

    4 of 4, although I think I kind of cheated, since thinking about question 2, I realized a mistake I’d made on question 1 and changed it. Worst case scenario, 3 of 4.

  448. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:59

    What gives you the idea that a group of secular humanists would ally with a group of religious extremists?

    Hmm … both don’t have a clue about high school level physics and dispute it on the basis of their personal ignorance of the subject ?

  449. noswald said,

    December 20, 2007 at 7:19

    The link to the pdf in your update has some weird string (“Tqnll0qMULwJ”) that I guess has something to do with your google cookie or something. Anyway, you have to remove it for the link to work for others.

  450. Caveat said,

    December 20, 2007 at 7:19

    “And none of that has anything to do with using logic correctly, which almost no one can do”

    I did quite well, actually considering I’m super tired right now. I misunderstood one question’s intent (don’t want to spoil it) assuming it meant in the past or present but it meant only in the present.

    Otherwise, I’m either super logical or the test is too simple.

  451. g said,

    December 20, 2007 at 7:21

    I can’t keep up with you all.

  452. John O said,

    December 20, 2007 at 7:23

    Wow! This is a lot of posts! 440-something. A new record?

    In any case, I have to confess I didn’t read many of them. OK, none.

    But I wanted to wish you S,N!ers a wonderful Christmas and holiday of your choice season, and encourage you all to look forward to the New Year as the beginning of the end of our long national nightmare.

    I surf a lot, and nowhere do I find a smarter, funnier set of posters. It is a wondrous thing.

    Thank you all for the laughs, and the effort you create in me to think.

    John O

  453. Hoosier X said,

    December 20, 2007 at 7:23

    Yeah, I don’t know any secular humanists that know anything about physics.

  454. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 7:25

    jeff said,
    December 20, 2007 at 5:42

    Douglas Watts,
    Jeff said:

    I absolutely reject the genetic fallacy that because human reason is dependent upon earliler evolutionary adaptations, that we cannot reason abstractly according to formally logical rules. It is probably the case that we have only discovered logic incidentally, after millenia of evolution prior to abstract language acquisistion; however, it is wrong to somehow take the prehistory of the brain as an argument against atemporal logics.

    I really don’t understand what plants lying has to do with anything, or even if that means anything.

    Okay. Then you don’t understand Darwin’s theory of evolution.

    I understand.

  455. John O said,

    December 20, 2007 at 7:25

    Uh-oh. A logic test?

    I got an A in logic at the U of IL without even trying. How far up do I have to scroll?

    I always find them fun, but could be too tired and tipsy (no work the rest of the year! Woohooo!!!!!!) to make an accurate try.

  456. mdhatter said,

    December 20, 2007 at 7:32

    Jillian, that test.

    So. Evil. and apparently spot on in the analysis of why.

    Very eye opening.

  457. mdhatter said,

    December 20, 2007 at 7:34

    John O – find Jillians remark a little way up (less than 50).

    and do take the test.

  458. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 7:35

    Mimicry is one of the most important survival adaptations on Earth.

    Mimicry means making yourself to resemble something you are not — and to not look like what you actually are.

    It is … lying.

    All organisms must tell lies in order to keep from being killed before they can give birth. Ergo, lying (ie. deception) is an evolutionarily derived instinct and skill which has survived because it is valuable.

    A fawn deer has spots on its coat for one reason: to imitate the dapple of broken sunlight in a forest and to break up the shape of the fawn so that predators do not see it. Protective coloration = lying.

    If you have ever hunted a deer with a bow and arrow you know that a deer has powers of reason and logic that exceed any human being. Ergo, reasoning is not innately human any more than is hemoglobin.

  459. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 7:38

    Doug, I’m glad you’ve got that all figured out, then.

  460. Nelly said,

    December 20, 2007 at 7:43

    On Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, Heinrich Meier, the Left, et al.:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=1184

    Unfortunately, if you don’t have a subscription you have to fork over 3 dollars. While the piece is mostly directed at Incontinentia Buttocks, it’s a good read in general. Having read it, I can’t help thinking I’m still mostly right about Strauss’ (and his students’) generally antagonistic attitude toward Schmitt, relative to the leftist thinkers’ far more seeming embrace.

  461. jeff said,

    December 20, 2007 at 7:47

    I call fake Doug Watts. That’s Jonah, or someone equally unblessed.

  462. mdhatter said,

    December 20, 2007 at 7:54

    “Many on the left….”

    Game. Set. Match.

  463. mdhatter said,

    December 20, 2007 at 7:57

    “Protective coloration = lying”

    in a passive-aggressive way, sure.

    But I don’t roll like that.

  464. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 8:02

    If any of you were deer, I would have already shot you.

  465. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 8:15

    I absolutely reject the genetic fallacy that because human reason is dependent upon earlier evolutionary adaptations, that we cannot reason abstractly according to formally logical rules — Jeff.

    I completely agree with you. I am simply adding to your thesis by stating that lots of other animals and plants can also reason abstractly according to formal logical rules. Watch how the stem of a plant bends toward the direction of sun during day like a sun dial. Think of this. Cetaceans (whales) have 30 million years of independent evolution separate from primates. Cetaceans have brains and language faculties completely equal to primates and humans — but evolved separately from primates during the past 30 million years. Whales are more intelligent than humans. I know this because I met some this summer who told me as such. Look at the picture of the baby Humpback whale on my link, from Stellwagen Bank, Cape Cod Bay, this July.

    So I agree with you.

  466. Hoosier X said,

    December 20, 2007 at 8:19

    And I bet no whale has ever written anything as dumb as “Liberal Fascism.”

  467. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 8:47

    And I bet no whale has ever written anything as dumb as “Liberal Fascism.”

    All joking aside. Whales have had 30 million years to independently evolve their brains and language. Whales are smarter than humans. This summer we had a mother and baby humpback swimming within 2 feet of the hull of our boat in Cape Cod Bay. The mother was 60 feet long. She was wider than our boat was long. She very carefully avoided touching the hull of the boat. Her tail was big enough to flip the boat over. She kept coming up to the surface to look at us. So did her young adult baby. Whales are much much smarter than human beings.

  468. RandomObserver said,

    December 20, 2007 at 9:23

    See for yourself, if you doubt me.

    4/4. I win at life.

    But I am an annoyingly logical person. With a math minor. It probably also helps that my father was a math profressor who wrote one of the standard first-order logic textbooks.

    It’s in my DNA, plus sucking at math was never a viable option in my family.

  469. Hoosier X said,

    December 20, 2007 at 9:36

    And I be that Mama Whale would put her foot down if Junior even tried to write anything like “Liberal Fascism.”

    Mama Whale is a good Mommy.

  470. RandomObserver said,

    December 20, 2007 at 9:36

    Because I love math and logic, a couple of other random thoughts.

    1. There are a variety of very simple questions that many math *professors* get wrong, including one that famously ran in a Marilyn Vos Savant column for a while where multiple PhDs wrote to her telling her she was mistaken. (She wasn’t) If you think logic is hard try probability.

    In that particular case the question was as follows:

    You are on a gameshow. You are presented with 3 doors. There is a prize behind one of the doors. You choose a door you think the prize is behind. Instead of opening that door, the host says he is going to open up a different door, one that does not have a prize behind it, and does exactly that.

    Now he gives you an option: do you want to switch the door you chose with the remaining closed one? Why or why not?

    2. The book Innumeracy is great if you like this sort of stuff.

    3. Even basic math and science often contradict common sense to a very large degree, to the point where common sense or gut instincts are worthless. Here is another one that many people find mind-blowing:

    You take a test for Lou Gehrig’s disease, a disease that affects only say 2000 people in the US. The test is 99% accurate. You test positive. What are the chances you actually have the disease?

    Hint: Not 99%.

  471. Citizens Against even Friendly Trolls like Dr BLT said,

    December 20, 2007 at 9:45

    “A new record?”

    Not to get to paranoid here, but this makes me believe John O is really Dr BLT. I don’t want to jump the gun but I’d say this is not in reference to the record number of comments posted here, but, rather, a code phrase relating to the pro-conservative pro-Christmas “record” by Dr BLT. We’ve become suspicious that many of you here are not who you say you are, but, rather, Dr BLT, and/or his many mindless minions.

    And, here is another glowing review of the CD, the guy must obviously be a conservative trying to prop up the troll and his music:

    http://www.tollbooth.org/2008/reviews/drblt.html

  472. RandomObserver said,

    December 20, 2007 at 9:46

    Sorry to derail further with my super nerd-dom…

    That said, the cabinet one was a bitch, simply because it’s hard to tell exactly what the scenario is. Are you supposed to assume the staffer that screwed up the S’s screwed up ALL the S’s or only some of them? And was he/she the ONLY staffer who worked on the S’s? I decided to assume the bare minimum, which in this case meant only assuming what they give you, which in turn meant assuming I’m not supposed to know for certain how many of the S’s got screwed up.

    I got three out of four right and could kick myself for the one I got wrong…very sloppy on my part. (Doesn’t seem like a particularly difficult test. Is it supposed to be?)

    All the tests are logically equivalent. If you got one wrong it basically means they asked you what 2+2 was four times in a row and you came up with 4, 4, 4, 7 as your answers. ;)

  473. Citizens Against even Friendly Trolls like Dr BLT said,

    December 20, 2007 at 9:52

    Just kidding. It’s me, Dr BLT, just stopping by to wish all of my liberal friends and reluctant fans a very Merry Christmas. Actually, I’ll admit, Citizens Against Even Friendly Trolls like Dr BLT is me, Dr BLT. The same can be said for Troll, the Ancient Yuletide Carol.

    I wasn’t trying to fool any of you, just challenge those of you here with high IQs. Those would be my biggest fans. Like I said in a song, I Can Count My Fans on One Hand. But the few fans I do have possess enormous IQs. So, every Christmas I stop by to express my appreciation for them.

    Now I suppose I should get back to the subject at hand. Liberalism is a good idea in principle, but in terms of practical application, it simply doesn’t work.

  474. Enoch Root said,

    December 20, 2007 at 10:40

    This shit will float around like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and will warp discussion for generations.

    Goldberg doesn’t have to believe it; he only has to peddle it in order to enable his pet fascism over the ‘fascism’ he describes.

    A classic case of conservative projection… It’s axiomatic: Anything a conservative accuses you of doing, they’re doing or have already done.

  475. Enoch Root said,

    December 20, 2007 at 10:43

    Quote:

    3. Even basic math and science often contradict common sense to a very large degree, to the point where common sense or gut instincts are worthless. Here is another one that many people find mind-blowing:

    You take a test for Lou Gehrig’s disease, a disease that affects only say 2000 people in the US. The test is 99% accurate. You test positive. What are the chances you actually have the disease?

    Hint: Not 99%.

    Answer: 50/50.

  476. Hoosier X said,

    December 20, 2007 at 10:43

    I say that two plus two CAN equal seven one out of four times. I spit on your bourgeouis notions of logic. Your bourgeouis notions of logic cannot put chains on ME.

  477. Winston Smith said,

    December 20, 2007 at 10:51

    Four! Five! Six! I don’t know!

  478. Pinko Punko said,

    December 20, 2007 at 10:53

    Squee alert for Jillian. Warning: Phil Collins and Hollywood fascism!

  479. Douglas Watts said,

    December 20, 2007 at 10:57

    Hoosier X:

    Thanks. Have a good night and morning.

  480. Andrew said,

    December 20, 2007 at 11:14

    “Marxist American Progressivism” is a kind of “Christian Fascism” which itself is another name for “Christian Socialism.”

    I… I got nothin’. I better leave before my brain fully liquifies….

  481. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 11:41

    Doug, the idea that you think plants “reason” is bizarre beyond all accounting.

    I tried to give my fern the logic test.

    It didn’t do so well.

    In other words, your reading of logic, reason, and thought is idiosyncratic at best. Not that you aren’t allowed an idiosyncratic interpretation; just that you shouldn’t be surprised when other people don’t accept prima facie absurd assertions without at least some basic attempt at supporting them.

    Or in other other words, you’re being illogical – which just proves my point. ;-)

  482. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 11:45

    Pinko –

    SQUEEE! When is the Doggie Cookie Bakeoff, judged by teh pups?

    ‘Cause I would totally do that.

  483. MonkeyBoy said,

    December 20, 2007 at 11:49

    Actually a lot of the early progressive movement was a movement of bored middle class Christian housewives looking for a Godly hobby and egged on by their minister leaders. I’m now reading “Riders of the Purple Sage”, Zane Grey, 1912 (the Oxford edition with introduction by Lee Clark Mitchell), because of its portrayal of Mormonism.

    http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780192833259

    The intro tries to come to grips with how this book became enormously popular in 1912 immediately selling over one million copies.

    In summary, middle class women were the main consumers of literature and advocates of social activism. (basically servants were common and being able to afford servants IS the original definition of middle class. If more than slightly prosperous then wives only had to direct the household and do little actual work and had plenty of time to do good). Literature for females and wifely activism was the main progressive force going back to “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. Mitchell partly explains the success of Riders, noting it built on the prior salacious genre of “Indians take white woman captive”. But there was also (poor) women starting to work outside the home, the question of the New Woman, this crazy Purity Movement going on that defined terms like ‘clandestine prostitution’ (all sex outside of marriage and some within), and a widespread conspiracy theory of rampant white slavery involving lots of captive females that was backed up with very little facts. (sort of equivalent to the common belief today that all homosexuals are pedophiles). All of this led of to passage of the Mann act. This effort led to a lot of salacious white slavery literature.

    So it seems Riders rode the crest of “captive woman”, “new woman”, “traditional woman” as well as being some good western writing. However the “white slavery” progressive brouhaha it existed verged on hysterical and was over the top.

    Of the other Progressive successes, I’d like to know which of them were not mainly fueled by women.

    Does Dough Boy realize he is mainly arguing against Christian women?

  484. Pinko Punko said,

    December 20, 2007 at 11:54

    So on the ALS test, the reasoning is that if you have one false positive, the chances of two false positives in row are essentially very low, but if you actually are positive, the test is accurate enough that a false negative is not likely to follow a true positive. I take it that the trick here is that you start from a fact of positive, then the population odds don’t matter. Does 50:50 come from 1/100 over 99/100? Odds of second false positive over odds of second positive if originally positive?

  485. Pinko Punko said,

    December 20, 2007 at 11:57

    Hee hee- J,

    this is the Republic of Dogs War on Xmas Holiday Bake Off. The boys were just the helpers. But I agree with you, they should be the judges of doggy treats baked just for them. Problem is they aren’t discriminating enough to judge, and somehow I’ll eat food from the mail from total strangers but I’d be worried some wingnut would try to take out the boys!

  486. Jillian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 12:16

    Well, next year I’ll make some dogie yummies and enclose a video of myself eating some of them so you know they’re good.

    I can’t believe I’ve gone to bed, slept, and gotten up – and this conversation is still going on. God, you guys are nerds. Explains why I love it here so much.

    And the influence of middle class women (white women!) on Progressivism is part of what contributed to making it teh suck on occasion. They were only interested in reform that didn’t offend their tender, David Brooksian sensibilities. Lots and lots of worry about swarthy foreign men stealing white women and selling them into sexual slavery, for instance, too. But the actually progressive people (like Helen Keller) weren’t above appealing to their copious pockets, which I think brings us back to Tom Wolfe and Mau Maus again.

    Is this where I came in?

  487. RandomObserver said,

    December 20, 2007 at 13:14

    So on the ALS test, the reasoning is that if you have one false positive, the chances of two false positives in row are essentially very low, but if you actually are positive, the test is accurate enough that a false negative is not likely to follow a true positive. I take it that the trick here is that you start from a fact of positive, then the population odds don’t matter. Does 50:50 come from 1/100 over 99/100? Odds of second false positive over odds of second positive if originally positive?

    50/50 was not the right answer.

    If you test positive there are two possibilties:

    1. You actually have the disease.
    2. It’s a false positive.

    The rarer the disease, the more likely 2 becomes relative to 1.

    I haven’t actually done the math, I’ll do it now. Out of 2000 people with ALS who could take the test, 1980 would be correctly identified as having it and 20 will get false negatives. (20 is 1% of 2000)

    Out of the other 300 million people without ALS who would take the test, 297 million would be correctly identified as not having it, and 3 million would get a false positive. (Again 1%)

    So out of all the people in the US, were they to take this 99% accurate test, 3 million plus another 1980 would come out as positive, but out of those only 1980 would *really* have ALS.

    If you get a positive you could belong to the group of 1980 true positives or the group of 3 million false positives. 1980 / 3001980 = .06% if I can use Windows calculator correctly.

    The easy way to think about these problems is to consider the very extreme cases and reason from there. Imagine only one person in the entire world has ALS. Obviously there are going to be a ton of false positives. If you collect 100 random people and give them this 99% accurate test one will come out a false positive, but the chance that that one person is the one person in the whole world who has ALS is obviously very slim. You can send in group after group of 100 people and freak out one from each group with a false positive but realistically none of them have anything to worry about.

    I freely confess that this makes no intuitive sense to me. My brain understands but my gut does not. The other example I posed about the game show also makes no intuitive sense, which is why multiple math PhDs embarrassed themselves nationally in print by giving the wrong answer to a problem that takes literally a minute to figure out by brute force.

    Logic and probability are *very* hard and often very counter-intuitive.

  488. scottp1296 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 14:03

    So, Jonah took several years and several hundred pages to write “I know you are, but what am I?? Amazing.

  489. r€nato said,

    December 20, 2007 at 15:34

    So, Jonah took several years and several hundred pages to write “I know you are, but what am I??

    That pretty much sums it up.

  490. r€nato said,

    December 20, 2007 at 15:36

    A classic case of conservative projection… It’s axiomatic: Anything a conservative accuses you of doing, they’re doing or have already done.

    again… pretty much.

  491. bambi said,

    December 20, 2007 at 15:41

    If any of you were deer, I would have already shot you.

    If you were to lose your way in the woods, we would let you die in a snowdrift.

  492. NickM said,

    December 20, 2007 at 16:21

    RE: the ALS test question.

    I got the answer to that one “wrong” – but largely because I was imposing my own rules on the question. In real world conditions, a positive result on an ALS test with 99% accuracy would indicate that your chances of having ALS are about 99%. Because there’s a strong selection bias going in – not everyone is randomly tested for ALS – people are pre-screened by their symptoms before the test is administered, resulting in, one would think, greater test accuracy.

    Of course, the question didn’t explain why you were taking the test – whether it was random or you were tested because you displayed symptoms – and I assumed, based on my experience with the world, that the latter was the case. That’s probably what throws most people off.

  493. pedestrian said,

    December 20, 2007 at 16:35

    4/4 – although I had the advantage of a clear and caffeinated morning mind and I warmed up with sudoku.

    Hah hah hah we are too smartz for Jillian’s test! Either that, or everyone else has a highly evolved aptitude for “protective coloration”

    OMIGOD Nazis were smart tooooooo!!!

  494. Jonah Gold...mountain said,

    December 20, 2007 at 16:37

    ALS = Aryan League of Salads?

  495. 4jkb4ia said,

    December 20, 2007 at 17:07

    Someone probably said all these things before, but:

    Sadly, NO!!! “Eradicating whiteness” is different from “de-Judaizing” things. Jewishness according to the Nazis was a race . It was biological. Whiteness according to the people who want to eradicate it is socially constructed. At first only Nordic people had it, and then Catholics and Jews were invited in.

    When Barack Obama talks about “hope” or Hillary Clinton talked about the “politics of meaning” they don’t hide the religious figures from whom they got this language.

    Desmond Morris’s “Theodore Rex” is my best source of information about the Progressive Era. It shows that Goldberg is going to have to make a distinction between TR-style Progressivism and WIlson-style Progressivism. TR believed in trust-busting, but he didn’t believe in “state capitalism”.

    Had to throw this in. Talks about “progressive elites” instead of “progressives” full stop, but it should be a surprise to no one that you can criticize Progressivism from the left for not being effectively democratic.

  496. 4jkb4ia said,

    December 20, 2007 at 17:10

    But Goldberg admitted there could be religious fascism. I was dubious about that.

  497. 4jkb4ia said,

    December 20, 2007 at 17:12

    Edmund Morris, not Desmond Morris :)

  498. Dhalgren said,

    December 20, 2007 at 17:17

    Pantload has no clue what he is talking about when he addresses Postmodernist theory. I’t enough to make me scream. What would Jean Daudrillard say?

  499. actor212 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 18:06

    Gary Ruppert said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:33

    The fact is, I am not Saul, but we share common Heartland values and a love for America.

    And warm showers.

  500. actor212 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 18:07

    Saul said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:02

    Liberal=big government.

    facsist=big government.

    Bush has been the single biggest proponent of bigger government since FDR.

    Ergo, Bush = Fascist

    This has been another “Straw Man Knocked Down” with your host, Actor212

  501. actor212 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 18:09

    Saul said,

    December 19, 2007 at 23:10

    I’m not a good speller guys, I’ll be the first to admit it.

    So you’re saying you’re pretty ignorant, huh?

    Well, good morning, Saul!

  502. master of logic said,

    December 20, 2007 at 18:09

    The best part of this is, I’ve been trolling the right-wing blogs making well-founded arguments against this book, and then the right-wingers scratch their heads in dismay at sense actually being made.

  503. actor212 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 18:13

    Saul said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:07

    I agree, the treasonous liberals should be forced to do their part in defense of America and Western Civilization.

    We are, we’re stopping Bush and the Republicans.

  504. NickM said,

    December 20, 2007 at 18:26

    @ Master of Logic – “The best part of this is, I’ve been trolling the right-wing blogs making well-founded arguments against this book, and then the right-wingers scratch their heads in dismay at sense actually being made.”

    Where is this happening? I’d like to read it and watch the fun!

  505. anythings.org » Blog Archive » LOL of the Day said,

    December 20, 2007 at 19:41

    [...] the goal of his book was to link everything liberals do (have done, or will do) with Hitler and other fascists in order [...]

  506. the crapture said,

    December 20, 2007 at 19:41

    this “ideas” (if the published equivalent of cat-litter finger-painting can genuinely be called ideas, per se) put forth in his boork are the ultimate proof of my belief that if Jonah is the example of how she was gonna use it, God should have never given Lucianne a uterus

  507. r4d20 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 19:42

    The fact is, not yet, brother. Not yet. But we need to pre-empt their designs of evil and collaboration with our enemies. Here in the heartland, we brook no tolerance with “tolerance”. We kill America’s enemies. Dead.

    You wont kill anyone. The only thing you will do is die like a bitch begging for mercy.

    But any time you want, feel free to bring it on.

  508. r4d20 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 19:48

    Even the slimy underdeserving cum who eat without a lick of work.

    I’m sure you used “cum” and “eat” in the same sentence by accident ;-).

    You hate liberals because they can admit they are gay and live fulfilling lives while you have to imagine Jack Bauer naked simply to get enough of a rubbery one to be able to force yourself to diddle the wife you can’t satisfy and who can’t satisfy you.

    Go back to the bathroom to practice your wide stance with larry craig you self-hating republican closet freak.

  509. DAS said,

    December 20, 2007 at 20:02

    Regarding the whole “Margaret Sanger was a racist so birth control is teh evil” line of argument.

    AFAIK, Margaret Sanger hardly engaged merely in “era appropriate” eugenics advocacy. She was a eugenicist and even people of her era realized her eugenics ideas were wrong.

    OTOH, Sanger was no racist. Watch now for righty-tighties to discover Sanger’s actual views on race and civil rights and argue that “MLK and his ilk were facists posing as civil rights champions … after all, they got support from Sanger, a known racist/fascist”.

  510. tigrismus said,

    December 20, 2007 at 20:07

    I’m sure you used “cum” and “eat” in the same sentence by accident ;-).

    You forgot “lick.” Our Gary is all about the tongue baths.

  511. Pinko Punko said,

    December 20, 2007 at 20:16

    Random Observer- I was just trying to understand how someone that declared 50/50 to be the “right” answer would have gotten that probability. I would have calculated false positive probability over real positive probability.

  512. Defining Dumbassery Downward « The Opinion Mill said,

    December 20, 2007 at 20:18

    [...] been laughing along with everyone else at the excerpts offered at Sadly, No! but at some point laughter is no longer possible. The argument Goldberg offers on the pages [...]

  513. Non Nato said,

    December 20, 2007 at 20:21

    Conservative Communism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Lincoln to Bush

    ‘But “functionally treasonable” is also disturbingly reminiscent of the old Stalinist term “objectively fascist.” This was how people who swore their loyalty to the cause were condemned (often to death) if they deviated from the party line. Stalinists defined all dissent as “objectively” treacherous. This is not a path that conservatives should follow. When intent and individuality are separated from actions in a political context, we are entering a totalitarian realm where Ann Coulter does not really want to be.’

    David Horowitz, “The Trouble with ‘Treason’” – Frontpage magazine.com July 8 2003 (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8793)

  514. Jamey said,

    December 20, 2007 at 21:47

    Goldberg’s book. He’s attempting to define Progressivism (of the historical, capital ‘p’ variety) as a literal fascist movement, so that everything liberals ever do, have ever done, or may do in the future can be identified with figures such as Mussolini and Hitler.

    Meanwhile, conservatism skates free and blameless for the conditions that made Progressivism necessary — as well as for being incomparably worse regarding all the late-19th and early-20th-Century faults and enthusiasms that Jonah mentions here. See, that’s why it was called ‘Progressivism’ in the first place: Because the conservative view at the time was that children ought to be working sixty hours a week in meat-packing plants, and so forth.

    In fact, we must stare in awe as Jonah accuses Margaret Sanger of “nasty racism” for her era-appropriate belief in eugenics, even while the back cover of his book, to be published in January 2008, sports a blurb by Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve.

    Goddamn, Gavin, that’s some awesome commentary! Wasted on the likes of Jonah, but still, my hat is off to you. So if I’m dumbing it down properly (for my own consumption), essentially, Jonah’s great feat is in using relativistic arguments to go after liberals’ “propensity” for relativism? (And Murray is totally era-appropriate — just on our era…)

    Great posting. I will be quoting you.

  515. Jamey said,

    December 20, 2007 at 21:48

    Er, that should read “just not our era…”

  516. Jemand von Niemand said,

    December 20, 2007 at 22:41

    Anyone have suggestions on how, exactly, Jonah’s book can be declared a hate crime?

  517. Doctorb Science said,

    December 20, 2007 at 23:06

    This illustrates why calling a test (for ALS or whatever) “99% accurate” is misleading, or at least not all that useful. This is why we use terms like positive predictive value (proportion of patients testing positive who are correctly diagnosed) and negative predictive value (proportion of patients testing negative who are correctly diagnosed) — the two are rarely the same, and if they are it’s by coincidence. With a biomedical test people generally want to err on the side of caution, which translates to accepting a higher false positive rate if it means reducing the false negatives (preferably to zero). This is where I would take about HPV testing, but instead I won’t.

  518. actor212 said,

    December 20, 2007 at 23:19

    Anyone have suggestions on how, exactly, Jonah’s book can be declared a hate crime?

    The mere fact that it was voluntarily released ought to suffice.

  519. Doug said,

    December 21, 2007 at 3:23

    A thought about the need of humans for classes in logic: perhaps what is really provided by a classroom situation is the ability to recognize just what logic is and how we have been using (or misusing?) it? If a person doesn’t understand what logic is, can they really be using it? Until a person knows why “if A,then B” is accurate, then they really aren’t using their mental capabilities fully, are they? I can see that there’s a lot of reading I’ll have to start in on.
    Oh, and Jonah is the classic example of nepotism. And stupidity. And the Sahara-like desert that is modern “conservative thought”. How he was ever allowed to became involved with the National Review is beyond comprehension! All those years spent trying to put a reasonable face on American Conservatism, right down the drain! I’m presuming William F. Buckley will shortly be dynamiting the offices.

  520. Eric H said,

    December 21, 2007 at 16:55

    I wonder if you’d also characterize the antisemitism of He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named as “era-appropriate”? Surely, if such ideas are bad, they are bad in any era, regardless of the identity of the person who thinks those thoughts?

  521. Merry Christmas, From the the Absentee Blogger Who was Busy with teh Family all This Week § Unqualified Offerings said,

    December 27, 2007 at 3:24

    [...] trenchant and (embarrassingly fawning) reviews at Sadly, No! to be found here, here, here, here, here, and here. Posted by Mona @ 8:23 pm, Filed under: Main « « Now this is one that I [...]

  522. jeff evers said,

    January 10, 2008 at 21:13

    It’s funny to watch lib’s rail about this book, sounds like a nerve was hit!

  523. Righteous Bubba said,

    January 10, 2008 at 21:15

    sounds like a nerve was hit!

    The funny nerve.

  524. fonos natas said,

    August 26, 2008 at 20:51

    So where do all you stupid cocksuckers get the idea that this book is calling progressives “fascist”? Progressives WERE the authors of eugenics, the Palmer Raids and loyalty oaths. Progressivism in the eighties was what the left started calling itself because it was so ideologically beaten down that they couldn’t even muster the balls to call themselves leftist anymore. Progressivism in 1948 meant support for Wallace. A Progressive is essentially just a cowardly social democrat. In the brain dead US, a social democrat is viewed as some sort of raving red madman when in reality the socialist parties of the world are centrist and dull as ditchwater. Only in the US can people convince themselves that a right-wing fuck like Obama is “progressive”. I guess people can convince themselves of anything.

  525. Hey you Liberal Fascists « The Agonist said,

    September 24, 2012 at 5:25

    [...] « Karma Kosher Conscripts in New-Age Diaspora Seek Refuge in Goa    Barclays sues over sub-prime losses » Hey you Liberal Fascists By ww, on December 20th, 2007 Get offa my cloud. [...]

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()