19
Goldberg Ad Astra (Meretricious-And-Happy-New-Year Edition)
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.)
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?
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!”
Herman Melville said,
December 19, 2007 at 22:09
The white whale is the Jew of liberal fascism?
FUCK !!! There goes my whole allegory ….
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.”
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.
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?
actor212 said,
December 19, 2007 at 22:16
EJ,
Are you suggesting that Jonah, like Ahmadinejad, is a Holocaust Denier?
TG Moxley said,
December 19, 2007 at 22:16
This book is like getting punched in the butt until you die.
Gavin M. said,
December 19, 2007 at 22:17
Oh yes, that’s a whole other flavor of fun!
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…
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.
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.
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.
Douglas Watts said,
December 19, 2007 at 22:21
actor212 — well said. thank you.
El Cid said,
December 19, 2007 at 22:22
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
tritonesub said,
December 19, 2007 at 22:27
Trevor,
Thanks for recognizing!
Ah Crum Petrie, we hardly knew ye…
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!
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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?
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.
Blue Buddha said,
December 19, 2007 at 22:38
Yep… that’s some secular language right there! Tell you what…
El Cid said,
December 19, 2007 at 22:39
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”.
RodeoBob said,
December 19, 2007 at 22:40
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
D.N. Nation said,
December 19, 2007 at 22:51
D’oh!boy:
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
Gavin M. said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:01
[added more text, btw]
Saul said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:02
Liberal=big government.
facsist=big government.
liberal=facsist.
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?
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.
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.)
Saul said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:06
homosexual = pedophile.
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?
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!
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.
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.”
Saul said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:09
Is this how you spell fascist?
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.
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.
Saul said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:10
I’m not a good speller guys, I’ll be the first to admit it.
El Cid said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:11
Hmm.
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.
MzNicky said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:12
I feel ill. This isn’t even unintentionally funny anymore.
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.
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.
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.
tb said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:14
Jogofascist.
El Cid said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:16
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.
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.
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.
Lesley said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:18
compassionate conservatism making inroads
example, example, example, example, example, example, example…
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.
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.
Oscar Mayer said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:19
The Franks are wieners.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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!
tb said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:28
And the Viennese sausages.
El Cid said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:29
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.
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.
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?
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.
Galactic Dustbin said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:31
So was the Confederacy liberal or conservative according to Pantload?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
pedestrian said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:40
Italians aren’t Germans,
Sure they are.
In the opposite sense, Italians were also Germans.
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”).
Arky - Fascitanata said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:41
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Element 5 said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:54
Jonah………you are the Cheetos beneath my wings.
(sigh).
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.
Jim said,
December 19, 2007 at 23:58
What a perfectly fascist thing to say.
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.
Gavin M. said,
December 20, 2007 at 0:02
[added an update]
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?
pedestrian said,
December 20, 2007 at 0:08
[whimper]
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.
Righteous Bubba said,
December 20, 2007 at 0:10
Same article.
actor212 said,
December 20, 2007 at 0:11
…but now that YOU mentioned it!
actor212 said,
December 20, 2007 at 0:12
The forerunner to the American Fascist Party’s attempt to rid America of “teh gay”.
pedestrian said,
December 20, 2007 at 0:13
Thanks Bubba! You are fine upstanding fascist if there ever was one.
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.
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.
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…”
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.
Gavin M. said,
December 20, 2007 at 0:20
Thanks for the Alan Wolfe/Schmitt link!
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.
FlipYrWhig said,
December 20, 2007 at 0:24
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.
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?
FlipYrWhig said,
December 20, 2007 at 0:25
Jonah Goldberg don’t need your fascist groove thing.
Jim said,
December 20, 2007 at 0:25
Hermann Göring’s cousin dated a fascist once.
It was fabulous.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
actor212 said,
December 20, 2007 at 0:33
French poodles, tig
t4toby said,
December 20, 2007 at 0:33
Backhanded compliment much?
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.
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.
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.
El Cid said,
December 20, 2007 at 0:39
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.
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.
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?
George S. Patton said,
December 20, 2007 at 0:41
Pantload, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
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%$#^&%^
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”…
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.
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.
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.
Righteous Bubba said,
December 20, 2007 at 1:06
If I were to write a book along these lines
Whoa whoa WHOA there!!!
El Cid said,
December 20, 2007 at 1:07
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.
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.
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.
jeff said,
December 20, 2007 at 1:16
Berube! YAY!
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/19/the-goldberg-variations/
El Cid said,
December 20, 2007 at 1:18
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.
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!!
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.
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.)
Gary Ruppert said,
December 20, 2007 at 1:34
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.
–
Andrew said,
December 20, 2007 at 1:34
Googled “doughy pantload”, and this is what I found:
Do we count as doughy pantload experts yet? Can Amazon.com truly provide a better community about doughy pantload issues? I’m not sure.
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.
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.
J— said,
December 20, 2007 at 1:40
Can someone who has a copy of the book tell us if Goldberg mentions Heidegger? Thanks.
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.
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?
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.)
Hoosier X said,
December 20, 2007 at