Jonah Goldberg's Revisionist Definitions
By Nicole Belle Saturday Jan 12, 2008 1:01pm 
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
Ah...the Doughy Pantload strikes again. Speaking in front of the Heritage Foundation (because, honestly, who else could sit through this tripe?) to pimp his latest book, Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg tries again to prove Moynihan wrong, not only by coming up with his own facts, but his own definitions as well.
The primary definition that Goldberg ignores for his own version is "Fascism." In Doughy Pantload World, "fascism" means "something bad". This is something I've suspected for many years about conservatives: They don't actually know the definitions of the epithets they like to throw out to dismiss and demean the left. They just think it means "something bad." For example:
To sort of start the story, the reason why we see fascism as a thing of the right is because fascism was originally a form of right-wing socialism. Mussolini was born a socialist, he died a socialist, he never abandoned his love of socialism, he was one of the most important socialist intellectuals in Europe and was one of the most important socialist activists in Italy, and the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I.
Um, actually, not so much. Mussolini was dubbed a fascist because he founded the Fascist Party, you big, fact-ignoring dope.
Jonah's hatred of Hillary Clinton knows no rational bounds (the original sub-title was "The Totalitarian Temptation From Mussolini to Hillary Clinton"--Mussolini as an American politician--who knew?) and he steals liberally from Naomi Klein to dive head first into the Godwin abyss with fantastical allusions to 1984 and some Big Brother bleak bureaucratic scenario of DMVs with Jumbotrons with nanny-state advisories on breastfeeding, based on Hillary Clinton's It Takes A Village.
The dizzying logic of it all just shows you why if Jonah Goldberg is one of the great thinkers on the right (and certainly, he's has prominent enough platforms from which to spew this tripe to argue that point), the right is bankrupt of intellectual honesty and comprehension.
(Update: BG thanks her fellow liberal bloggers for this.)
Login or Register to post comments.
Any high school student who's been paying attention understands more than this idiot.
The fact that he's being treated as a legitimate author is insulting.
I don't blame Goldberg. I blame the AEI and Heritage Foundation for handing cash like this.
If they are willing to offer to pay for a person's education and gave him a job saying inconceivably idiotic things, chances are some people will say yes and accept these terms.
Jonah hating Hillary will have me taking another look at Hillary. Hillary lost me on that yes vote for the Kyl Lieberman amendment especially if the Bush administration uses it to attack Iran.
But that type of hatred coming out of Jonah towards Hillary will have me taking an even closer look
So this is what mAnn Coulter REALLY looks like.
Doughy Pantload admitted to Tucker Carlson on Friday that he has revised history and the definition of "fascism".
Over at my crappy little blog that only my cats read, I am cataloging the things that are smarter than Jonah Goldberg...
So far I have come up with Athena, Maxine and Dexter (My three cats) and a plastic baby gate.
I encourage other submissions
Jonah's a matinee idol for the bedwetter set
This guy is really full of himself if he thinks he can revise history.
So, it is scientifically possible to exist without higher brain functions. Thanks you for giving me a Nobel Prize, Mr. Goldberg.
Fascism has nothing to do with the basic leftist or progressive politics. Thats where these right wingers get it wrong.
Fascism is all about putting the good of the many over the good of the few (aka, Vulcan politics).
Like, for example, its more important for the government to listen in on every phone call they can, so they can hopefully catch a terrorist talking to a terrorist, in order to protect us... than it is for my personal privacy rights to take priority and keep those guys from indiscriminately listening to me talk dirty to my girlfriend or ask my buddy down the street if he's got a $20 bag of weed I can come by and pick up.
Thats fascism. Individual interests are subordinate to State interests. Thats the whole point of the neocon movement. Hillary Clinton on the other hand... well, she may be shady or "something bad" but she's certainly no fascist. She's all about a free market shrouded in personal privacy rights protecting her from running shady business deals and possibly killing off lawyers. (sorry, Clinton fans).
Jonah's dead wrong. Fascism has nothing to do with liberalism or progressive politics.
He also seems to really really twist "Socialism" and "Fascism" under the same wing. Like they're one and the same thing. And for a guy referencing history, that makes him look pretty damn ignorant. The Spanish Civil War was fought by two factions, one who supported socialism, and one who supported fascism.
This guy's a moron. Oh, and do I have first?
"Liberal Fascism"????
In most educated societies such quote would have its author laughed out of town. Not in our country though, years of dumbing down mean that idiots like this feller... not only have audiences, but actually forums dedicated to spew their ignorant brand of neusprechen...
Part of me wants to feel sorry for this guy, but I simply cannot muster the pity. Its a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of the conservative movement that they give such "prestigious" tribunes to someone like this clown. I thought there would be adults in his environments that would tell him its not the same having a witty conversation at dinner parties and the office water cooler and trying to overturn decades of scholarship in political science and history. This from the guy who defends "elitism" as a fundamental conservative principle... unless its from academia, because academia is liberal and therefore wrong in everything associated with it... the subtitle of the book might as well have been "I know you are, but what am I?"... that is the level of discourse of contemporary conservatism. Oh, and nasty liberals want to take my bag of Cheetos away because its bad for me...
I saw the Q&A portion of this last night. Jonah would be more effective in defending his work by being much more concise in his answers and not so obfuscatory and befuddling. Unless, of course, that is central to his defense.
googling Liberal Fascism...the googlebomb has worked as of this hour.
I love how they misspell fascism on the screen under his name and call themselves BookTV.
The problem of Goldberg thesis is that *nationalism* is a central idea of fascism. I don´t know if "anti-american' liberals would fit that.
What a stupid, stupid little man. He's nothing more than a bag of undefined and nebulous bigotries all packaged up in a human suit, just looking for targets upon whom he can fixate, focus and project all of the darkness and smallness of spirit that he calls his inner being. What a vile and pathetic piece of work.
I can remember not all that long ago when the power of social mores, derived from the consensus culture, would have been all that was needed to keep a cockroach like Goldberg silent. He would never have breathed a word in public of his depraved thoughts and ideas for fear of the universal condemnation that would have been heaped upon him. Now, this sicko gets a public forum and the support of fine, upstanding Republicans.
What more do we need to know about present day GOPerism?
Fascism, to Goldberg, equals instructional videos on breastfeeding. The man has issues.
Because I was up so early this morning I saw this tripe. Hard thing to deal with first thing in the morning. When he got to the part about teaching parent how to raise kids and all that bs, I turned him off. Useless piece of human flesh!
I just love his "rebel" goatee. No mamas-boy he!
The guys book is an oxymoron.
apple pie @ 21:
Which, as I noted ... even my cats know
Classical 1930'/1940's Fascism: Brutal and violent suppression by an authoritarian, state-sponsored paramilitary and military of the individual in favor of the state. Suppression and severe persecution of intellectualism in favor of advancing the state-sponsored mythology.
Jonah's Liberal Fascism: Working within legislative processes, as provided in the US & state constitutions, to attempt to advance policies conducive to the betterment of the general welfare and greater liberty of the citizens. Support of intellectual expression and a free academy.
Oh yeah, who wouldn't see the similarities.
The pundits on the right winger side of the fence have found their new all-time low. Pretty soon, they're going to send out a car full of clowns. When the doors pop off, a million Republican clowns will jump out and tell us about oogy-boogy Liberals on CNN, and CNN will take them seriously.
Being fair is one thing. It's good to hear all sides of an opinion. What is not good is entertaining the dellusions of people who are two IQ points above mentally handicapped.
What a pathetically ignorant man. Everyone knows he's a Zionist Nazi. The LA Times destroyed its credibility by hiring this hate-spewing thug.
I thought that the heritage foundation was group of educated elites. How can they listen to this idiot. And a very good point, "They don't know how to spell fascism."
Well at least he admits the book is a polemic. The truth sort of leaked out too. He wrote this book for two reasons: 1) he's tired of being morally on the wrong side of every issue. 2) His insecurity drives him to get validation as an academic, which he is not. His mommy did him a disservice, pimping him as a scholar, when he is a GED grade mind.
Jonah has a life of scorn and ridicule to look forward to unless accepts his severe limitations
Ron, I saw your baby gate and peed laughing! Good work, sir.
I would like to go on the record and say that pie is smarter than Jonah. Especially rhubarb pie.
mojopo @ 24:
I thought they were 2 points below.
Ron @ 26:
Ron @ 26:
Nope. Heritage is a funded PR front to give credentials to wingnuts that can't get them any other way. Heritage is to scholarship what the chimp is to the word cowboy, in name only.
mojopo @ 28:
My cats and I thank you
I've known egotistical gasbags who are difficult to tolerate on both the left and the right, but having watched him in various venues over time, I have to say that he comes off as the MOST insanely egotistical gasbag of them all.
Of course, that's ONLY a gut-level personal and emotional reaction. That doesn't mean his book is crap. I would have to at least give it a quick skim to determine that one way or the other.
I could be wrong here, but I SUSPECT that the book does not end up going a whole lot deeper, with much, if any, academic rigor. I highly doubt that Goldberg went into his undertaking as a detached, analytical observer, merely wanting to get to the bottom of the truth of what fascism actually is, where it came from, and which contemporary political groups and policies it has the most in common with.
I doubt that most intellectual historians (except perhaps those at The Heritage Foundation and The Claremont Institution!) would find much of serious value within its pages.
I suspect he wrote it to satisfy his dittoheads and to make a buck or two. But I do plan on reading it - maybe even cover-to-cover! - so I've reserved it at my local library. It's only a 3-week wait; I'll probably be able to endure it (the wait, that is).
Amazing how we now call LIES revisionism these days.
Liberal fascism is one of the great oxymorons. Goes hand in hand with Intelligent Goldberg and compassionate conservative.
This book is a pantload of wingnut welfare.
Maybe Jonah can take his Holocaust demeaning shtick on the road with noted anti-Semite Ann Coulter as a sort of Morton Downey Junioresque, grand-guignol, all star wrestling, circus-geek freak show.
-GSD
According to Mussillini, fascism was the process of insinuating corporate control so deeply into the workings and institutions of government, that corporations become the de facto government, running government solely for their benefit.. at the expense of all citizens. Mussillini said that it is only after the corporate takeover of government is completed and their control is unshakable, that the government drop is able to drop all pretensions of being servants of liberty or democracy. Once that pretense is dropped, the government comes out of the closet as a fully totalitarian entity. Invariably and prior to the fact, the organs of totalitarian control will have been nurtured and brought to maturity quietly, behind the scenes, awaiting the time that the pretense could be dropped and totalitarian measures could be enacted without restraint. The government becomes repressive, instantly ready to apply the full power of government to crushing anything that gives power to the people, serving only whatever furthers the interests of the corporations which own and operate the state and serving only the power elites within the fascist society. Fascism is a present-day, modernized form of feudalism, wherein the people become serfs, citizens become subjects and the aristocratic houses are the corporations themselves and all laws and powers of the state are bent toward serving exclusively the elites within such a system. That is fascism.
We are headed in that direction, if not there already. It looks to my eyes as if liberal democracy is losing the battle against emerging fascism in America. This is, incidentally, why I will never vote for any corporatist candidate, regardless their professed party affiliation.
Kathleen @ 3:
yeah id let a jerk like this influence me too!
Paging Jonah Goldberg! Paging Jonah Goldberg! Your flying saucer is illegally parked. Please remove it immediately from the fire lane.
And while you're at it, why don't you go back to the planet Reverso where you came from.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only organized group of people who stood up against the Nazies were the German Communist Party, and that wasn't because they were too liberal for them.
Yes, of course, Mussolini proudly proclaimed himself a fascist, but this is, as you point out, no hitch for the fact and reason challenged dolt.
But whaaaat???? "the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I." Uh, does he mean WWII? Afterall, Italy was on the side of the US in WWI.
Oy. Lucky for him that he has wingnut welfare and a leg up from his momzilla.
Paul @ 17:
No neocon Republican is fine and upstanding. Their interpretation of conservatism is a vile, selfish mutation of the genuine article. If we consider Goldberg to be a fair representation of the neocons, which I think he is, it tells us that they promote a backward, bankrupt philosophy that will ultimately be rejected and repudiated by the voters.
Hope the neocons have fun with their anchor of arrogance, perfidy and mendaciousness around their necks which they mistake for a life saver. See you at the bottom, fools. You deserve it.
Each time I read Jonah's nickname, visions that bring laughter always emerge. Could someone clue me in as to how the "Doughy Pantload" came into being?
Paul @ 35:
It's not history anymore. It's present day in the U.S.
André Kenji @ 16:
Oh and the hits keep on coming. Who vetted his book? Brittany Spears?
-GSD
This is a back door way for them to blame liberalism for the Holocaust, Hitler, etc., because Hitler took notes from Mussolini and put some of them to use in Germany. Ergo, they will claim that if Mussolini did it, Jews died en masse because of it, and Hitler was allowed to ravage Europe wantonly. It'll also be a reason they'll use to blame Spain's fascism on liberalism too.
Their rewriting of history knows no bounds. Their goal is to make people stupid, and if they can do that, they'll never have open opposition to their evil, and they'll never have to answer for anything. It's about trying to escape the light truth and justice so absolute power can be exercised openly without question. Look at the European "leaders" of the same right-wing stripe. They subvert everything to achieve their ends. They do not concern themselves with ethics or other peoples' freedom.
I had to turn it off, when he claims that the left hates the military. That is simply not true. There are certainly factions to the left of center who are opposed to the military, but I'm on the left, and I don't blame the military for our drumming it up to go to war. I blame the military-industrial complex, the security-industrial complex, and all those civilian corporations that are profiting enormously off of our being in a protracted state of war.
Anybody who's informed about our military academies already knows that West Point does not promote war. It prepares an educated group of citizens from across the nation to be able to lead our military in defense of our nation, and it teaches to its cadets a sense of obligation to adhere to a level of personal morality during war. I'm not sure about the Air Force Academy, because they've apparently been infiltrated by Christian fundamentalist extremists who see George's GWOT as a righteous jihad, and the Naval Academy can't seem to overcome its sexist violence against female cadets.
But this guy is first, a poor public speaker, and second, someone who adheres to false premises upon which he bases his conclusions.
To the Reich Wingers the only qualification for being a writer, commentator, etc., like the Kristols and the O'Reallys is that you spew the party line and spice it up with even more hate than you did the previous week.
I watched part of this truly awful book launch, and laughed heartily at his assertion that Hitler was anti-Christian, and that Roosevelt's enlisting Hollywood's support of WW2, by making pro-war propaganda films amounted to a "liberal fascism," disregarding his signing of the Wagner act, which instituted the National Labor Relations board, that"guarantees un-supervised employees the right to self-organize, choose their own representatives, and bargain collectively or they may choose not to do any of these things. "The statute guarantees the right of employees to organize and to bargain collectively with their employers or to refrain from all such activity" (Smith, 1998), meaning it was actually an anti-fascist (as we understand the term) piece of legislation he ushered in. Goldberg's doorstop is more of the same tripe, and an embarrassment to any literate person, who should justifiably feel insulted at his underestimation of the average reader's intellect. Perhaps it would sell better as a comic-book, since his vision is so two-dimensional.
Hammer, meet nail:
BlueIndependent @ 43:
Maybe Jonah can go find a rubber room so he and Bernie Goldberg can have a level playing field discussion about their delusions. Heck, let's get Danoush Desousa, Ann Coulter and Stephen Hayes in there too.
As long as it is going to be fiction based group therapy session they may as well bring into the fray all of the cartoonish characters that write such drivel.
Birth of a Right-Wing Intellectual
Momma Pantload (to a young Pantload heading outdoors into the snow): Now Jonah, make sure your coat is buttoned, put on your wool hat, and for heaven's sake buckle you goolashes.
Young Pantload: You fascist! Fascist, fascist, fascist, fascist, fascist! I don't wanna be hugged! You're smothering me mommy! Nobody else wears rubber goolashes! The other kids will call me names and make fun of me! Fascist, fascist, fascist, fascist, fascist!
Attention Moonbats, it has always been spelled FACISM.
-The Ministry of Goldbergian Revisionism
hate2haggle @ 40:
I've only seen a comment by someone who thinks his mom came up with the nickname.
Not very concrete. But sounds possible...
Any ideology, left or right, that is forced on other people becomes fascism. And I believe that whatever the initial ideology, any society that becomes a fascist state will become right-wing, because of conservatives' natural tendency to pay lip-service or pretend to respect authority, be it police, military, church or state, than a more liberal public. And it will be the left-wing that fights to end the fascism, again irregardless of the leanings of the initial ideology because of the exact opposite tendencies, i.e. questioning authority.
These to tendencies I've ascribed to the right and left, respect to and the questioning of authority would I think also lead to conservative societies have a greater chance of becoming fascistic.
My 2 cents.
That's because these people are something worse the Fascist!
Jonah's right. When I see a uniform, I immediately think "Fascist!" Fascist girl scouts, fascist nurses, fascist firefighters, the list is endless. I gave the mailman a good thrashing the other day, screaming "Down with the postal oppressors!" What a jackass.
The Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) was a paramilitary force? Armed with picks, shovels and wheel barrels? Waging war on bad roads, building National Park infrastructure and putting up buildings for the public good? All so that they could earn enough money during a depression to feed themselves and their families? The fiends. Oh, the humanity! That FDR was the worst fascist evar! I mean, like evah!
I think the reason he finally presented it for publication is that he was feeling pressure from the guy who signed his wing-nut welfare checks (Scaife) to produce something - anything - to justify his continued existence on The Corner's payroll. That he just procured a spot with the LA Times, and then offered up this ill-thought mess can be seen as him burning his bridges to Wing-nut Welfaristan. He thinks he's a Media Elite now; his old crew can just clean up his old hackery and wave, as his ample posterior recedes into the sunset.
Jonah epitomizes the intellectual bankruptcy of the right wing. The scholastic poverty of the right must be severe indeed if Goldberg is the best they can do these days. Their willingness to listen to him as though he is a worthwhile thinker also demonstrates they have lost the ability to feel shame. Goldberg aspires to be a right-wing theoretician on the level of Ann Coulter; while his content is equally vacuous, his nastiness lacks her gift for rabid bile and he doesn't have her cojones.
It's like watching a drunkard make a TOTAL ASS OF HIMSELF and refusing help as he pisses himself mid-speech in front of the crowd... these GOP are truly the strongest evidence I can procure to back up the existence of a failing school system in this land. Why do the ignorant flock to that party like seagulls to a trashcan?
What a maroon.
Basically, his premise is that everything bad is liberal. Not only are liberals commies, as we've always known, but are fascists too. Commies and fascists! The only reason his head does not explode trying to conflate these two opposing concepts is that would require the two atrophied brain cells drifting around in the vast, empty cavern that is his brain-holder to have a nodding acquaintance with one another.
All goes to show that you can't buy intelligence, no matter how much money the wingnut-welfare institutions throw around. If I were they, I'd be pissed. Talk about negative ROI.
They just think it means “something bad.”
Jonah's been hearing that his whole life from his mom.
That a sucessful, single, upwardly-mobile woman like Lucianne would think to name her son "Jonah" speaks volumes.
I can just see them at family get-togethers when he was a little boy:
"And here comes my little Jonah!"
Didn't Mussolini say somthing about crushing socialism under his boots?
Jonah:
"To sort of start the story, the reason why we see fascism as a thing of the right is because fascism was originally a form of right-wing socialism. Mussolini was born a socialist, he died a socialist, he never abandoned his love of socialism, he was one of the most important socialist intellectuals in Europe and was one of the most important socialist activists in Italy, and the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I."
Nicolle:
"Um, actually, not so much. Mussolini was dubbed a fascist because he founded the Fascist Party, you big, fact-ignoring dope."
Woah woah ok ok ok, let's not go off the deep end here. Definitions are flying everywhere around here hoping that something will stick. The easiest way to debunk someone is not to simply refer to the name of a political party and thus conclude that what it PRACTICED in REALITY must match its name, like the name of a party and its actions are a one-to-one correlation.
All these words: socialism, fascism, communism, etc...I don't think anyone actually went out and looked at what the proper definitions of these words are.
First of all, fascism is a political philosophy underlying a leader's controlling of economic resources. In particular, fascism is when the government TELLS the private owners of corporations what to produce, where, in what quantity, with what methods, and who to sell the products to. This is how both the Nazis and Mussolini's party ran the country.
Socialism is simply a word used to describe a lack of private ownership of the means of production in a country. It is an economic concept, not a political concept. Thus although Mussolini dubbed his party "The Fascist Party", because he told the private owners of business what to produce, and where, etc, his system of control can be and should be properly defined as a socialist economic system, fascist country. The private owners of business in Italy were told exactly how to run their businesses, rendering individual choices absent, and thus we can say that the fascist government of Mussolini owned the businesses "de facto".
Communism is simply an economic system as well. It's similar to fascism, the only difference being that in communist countries, the government actually legally OWNS all means of production. Soviet Russia is an example of a socialist economic system, communist country.
In both cases, i.e. fascism and communism, the means of production are not managed or otherwise directed by the private owners. In both cases, the governments ran the show.
Therefore it is correct to call both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy SOCIALIST countries, because in both cases the private owners did not, nay, could not, direct the operations of the business firms. In both cases, the consumers of each country were not the ultimate decision-makers as to what gets produced, like they do in the hampered capitalist countries of today.
Instead of focusing on names, we should focus on what actually was practiced. That way, you will not make errors in describing the nature of these regimes.
To really nail this in, in case there is any doubt, there are numerous examples of countries that are run by parties called something that is actually antithesis to their practices.
E.g. 1: Nazi Germany was a socialist country, the word Nazi is a shorthand for a name that contains the words "Socialist Worker's Party" Nazis were fascist, and they told business what to do, so they were socialist. This is one case where the name of the party is correct, and where people get it wrong all the time (many think Nazi Germany was capitalist!!)
E.g. 2: The "Labour [socialist] Parties" of Great Britain, the Nordic countries etc were and are not actually "socialist" because in these cases the means of production are overwhelmingly owned by the private population and not the governments. These countries are not socialist but rather hampered capitalist just like this country. These are examples of party names NOT matching the actual nature of the party.
and finally,
E.g. 3: "The Fascist Party" of Mussolini. If someone states that Mussolini was socialist, they are not incorrect because socialism and fascism are not mutually exclusive entities, as shown above. They mean slightly different things, they are not antitheses or opposites. To argue over whether Mussolini was fascist or socialist is like arguing over whether someone is really sick or terribly ill. Fascism and socialism mean the same thing in an economic context, because in both cases, there is an absence of private owners of business directing their firms operations that are based on consumer demand driven profits.
Hope this helps, because to me calling someone a "big fact-ignoring dope" for saying something means you REALLY know what you're talking about. Hmmm....
Nicole Belle, I applaud you for actually watching that thing. Bravo and thank you for taking one for the team. I tried, I really did.... but a mere few minutes in and I couldn't take it anymore. I would try again every few minutes to see if I could take more, but no -- I had to make it stop.
Did you notice how much water he was drinking? He would stop mid-sentence, mid-word even. I guess slinging bullsh*t makes you dry up.
Goldberg is trying to spin fascism towards those on the left when his own Bush Administration resemble other fascist dictatorships of old. The characteristics found in all are virtually the same. You have extreme nationalism centered around a single figure followed by a massive militiary industrial machine to carry out that individual's orders. On the domestic front they tend to remove civil and human rights and replace them with strict "security" measures. Next they tend to favor one single group and oppress others. I can go on and on. Its also funny that many of the heroes that the far right loves have also found favor with many known dictators. Nixon's meeting with the "traditional values" Francisco Franco comes to mind.
You wouldn't be able to begin to understand because you're an individualist. You don't seek help in refining your views. Your need for realist answers should have told you that!
My question to all of you; when do we form the realist party?
The party that will dworf all political entities before it.
Jonah needs a hug from the namby-pamby fascists.
I find the books' title a juvenile misdirection, attempting to cast "Liberals" as the worst of the opposite side of the aisle. Don't they ever read?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines fascism as:
"an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government."
He may's well have used the more explicit oxymoron, "Liberal Neocons." It makes as much sense as his existing title. And, who's more "authoritarian and nationalistic" than the Neocons?
Drew @ 62:
You and Jonah obviously went to the same school.
Merely because someone SAYS they're one thing, doesn't make it so. Pat Pobertson and Pat Buchanan CLAIM to be Christians, yet their words and deeds rarely match the teachings of Christ. Christian means Christ-like. Joe Lieberman claims to be a Democrat, but acts like a Thug.
Nazis were not socialists, fascism is no where near similar to socialism and whatever Kool-Aid you've been supping on has done you no favours in the "Know your Political philosophies' category.
When you've been to a place like Norway, which is a Socialist Democracy, report back. Oh and do make sure you mention that fascism=socialism to them, but be ready to run. They lived under Nazis 'socialism' and once they stop laughing, they may want to pummel on you a bit.
Carol Anne @ 67:
Just to be complete, the original neo-cons were ex-democrats, just so you know...the movement is not a true conservative philosophy. It is a delicious two fisted blend of fascist corporatocracy and socialist government spending. The worst of two worlds are colliding in this country...
Sorry...listened to three minutes...couldn't take anymore.
I wish someone would pan the audience. I would really like a glimpse of the people that actually belong to this organization.
Other fun facts about Liberal Fascists by Jonah G, Pantload Mastermind:
Liberal fascists can get you pregnant in a swimming pool.
Liberal fascist germs remain on a toilet seat approximately 10 days after they have left.
Liberal fascists made their money on made from hemp and discarded embryos.
Drew
You are so wrong... not every social and economic events can fit into a two-dimensional explanation: liberal vs. conservative; communism vs. fascism; capitalism vs. socialism... you can't go about dividing political science and history scholarship in such Manichean ways... real academic scholarship does not work that way... doing so is politicizing EVERY aspect of human existence in a way that, yes! totalitarians of the left (Stalin) and right (Hitler) would approve of... why defend the indefensible? there are better arguments to be had than Doughy's delusions.
I hate it when a typo ruins a marginal joke. Sorry! "On made" had no place in my previous sentence, yet there it was...
For all those who still talk about a liberal media, Golberg writes an editorial column for the Los Angeles Times. You know, that bastion of liberalism. Also, his mother is Lucian Goldberg of Tripp / Lewinsky / Kenneth Starr fame. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, does it.
miss_kitty @ 68:
I agree with your statements regarding the fake Christians (or are they merely REALLY doing what Christianity is really all about?). According to the old testament, Robertson would definitely be a true Christian, Buchanan is more moderate (read sane) than Robertson.
Your point about Lieberman is correct too.
Your ignorance of what it means to be socialist is where you go wrong, as do lots of people. SO don't worry, you have lots of company!
Norway is not Socialist, they are hampered market economies. If they were socialist, the government would OWN all means of production.
This is yet another example of a Big Lie, the technique pioneered by Josef Goebbels.
There's a purpose to this bogus branding of Democrats and Liberals as fascists. The fact is that all the techniques used by the Nazis and other European fascist parties in the 1930s to manipulate public opinion, control the news media, gain the complicity of big business, and create the conditions to fight wars, have been put to use by Bush, Cheney and the Republican congressional majority.
Manufactured foreign threats (Saddam, WMDs, Iranian nukes, yellowcake); relentless fear-mongering backed up by bogus terror alerts; the cultivation of blatant bias within complicit media entities (Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, talk radio, rightie pundits with well-paid 'fellowships' at think tanks supported by massive corporate donations); the conflation of Muslims, in reality a divided, multi-ethnic religion, only a small minority of whom are violent, into a monolithic enemy so fearsome that any degradation of American civil liberties is justified (just like the Jews in the 30s); the branding of Liberals as enemies of the state (a consistent refrain of all fascists throughout the fascist era); ongoing Swift Vet media smear-jobs and slanders; the advent of private corporate mercenaries and no-bid military contracting with no effective oversight; the phony moralism (totally contradicted by the scandalous private conduct of innumerable Republicans); massive expansion and abuse of domestic intelligence and surveillance; the massive, yet under-reported and under-investigated Republican financial scandals (just like Goering in the 30s and 40s); the abuse and co-opting of religion for political purposes (a constant theme in Hitler's speeches and writings); the invocation of the necessity that all citizens defend "the Homeland" at all costs, including the sacrifice of basic civil rights . . . .
All of these techniques and strategems, every single one, were practiced by the fascists of Italy and Germany.
To brand Liberals as the real enemy, the real fascists, is a vital element of the web of Big Lies that has duped a gullible and complicit public to consent to war, massive public debt and increasing income inequality. It's intentional. Goldberg, the rest of the punditry, Fox News, the PNACers, Grover Norquist, Karl Rove - they all know exactly what they are doing, and to what purpose.
DelTweed @ 63:
Nicole did a wonderful write up here, but I took one for the team and sat through this tripe to get the video, and yes I did notice that he could not stop drinking water the entire time. Interesting take on why....lol.
Fascism can be summed up in one phrase: Our way or the highway.
Jose @ 72:
If there are better arguments to be had, why did you click on this link on what Jonah said? You make no sense.
And by merely saying I am "so wrong", without providing any argument means you have none. And yes, when it comes to economics, EVERYTHING can be black and white.
Hes not exactly wrong to make a historical link between "socialism" and "fascism"... but liberalism and fascism? doesn't make sense to me. maybe thats the catch, a nice oxymoronic title?
This guy and his ilk are what's destroying this country. I was watcing Kagan on c-span a couple of monthe ago and cringed. There vision is distorted and twisted. Why people pay them any mind is beyond me.
Drew @ 69:
to further add, the Neocons, as decribed above, were also Trotskyists when they were far left Democrats. They subscibe to Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution" and have manifested this ideal into the "War on Terror".
with all due respect to Drew @ 62, they *ARE* different things. if they weren't different things, then why was the Spanish Civil War fought between communists/socialists.... and fascists?
a lot of western intellects tend to forget that synonyms are merely "similar" and not "another word for." - there's a reason that there are two words for not being well, one word being "sick" and another word being "ill." - the reason there are two words, is not because smarty pants doctors get bored saying one, so they decide to say the other. its because they are two different states of being, with two different definitions.
Fascism, and Socialism, are two totally different things. the largest difference is - in a socialist culture, the majority of goods and services are owned by the community, and the State is beholden to the community to administer these programs efficiently and equitably. In a Fascist culture, both marketable goods and services... and indeed even social things such as the arts... are beholden to the State.
this is why the Spanish Civil War was fought. it was a matter of who was to make final decisions about both economic and personal contributions... the State, or the People.
the only thing common to both Socialism and Fascism, is the uniformity and equitable distribution of goods and services. the power structures are two wholly different things.
so with all due respect, I *DO* know what I'm talking about, and Jonah *IS* a big fact-ignoring dope for trying to twist the two idealogies into the same thing.
I can kind of see Jonah's concern that liberals might be Fascists. what with liberals demanding all HMOs provide equitable care, etc. but if you're going to make that kind of stretch, then you have to simultaneously admit that neocons are Socialists... what with trying to coerce dozens of telecoms into providing wiretaps to the State, without asking the People for their opinion on the subject.
Drew @ 69:
did anyone really watch that whole thing.
If I wanted to listen to a hate monger I would listen to a Hitler speech.
"Fascism, and Socialism, are two totally different things.."
"Fascism is the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society...."
Thus spake Mussolini.
Drew @ 79:
Please provide three examples in which EVERYTHING regarding economics can be black and white. In addition, the poster gave several examples of why you were wrong. You chose not to address them.
Considering the Fascism is a political principle, not economic, I would have to say that it is you who is not making sense.
for a regular joe like me with a little more than average understanding of politics and history how can "liberal" and "fascism" be used together at all? just using basic definitions, "liberalism" would be a system for personal governance over ones self or a system which benefits ones self - would produce a state to serve you the individual. the later would be the exact opposite, a system where the state is more important than the individual, the individual is to serve for the states benefit.
am i wrong? without looking too much into it, seems like the author is intentionally using "liberal" colloquially as "socialism". is "liberal" still a bad word in the south?
bmw 528 @ 39:
Right you are. Especially about there being no "fine, upstanding" GOPers. I was venomously speaking tongue in cheek on that one. I am hoping that all they are doing by choosing guys like Goldberg as public representatives of their thinking is proving that they are going extinct as a viable party.
Me: A week before our celebration of LBJ's birthday (not!), I was glad to read again about King's humble gratitude. Too bad that stringing together isolated facts doesn't make for a unique narrative of The True History. Funny how Wilentz misses the unintended ironic lesson of how uninspired leadership is doomed to failure: LBJ's Voting Rights bill was negated by gerrymandering, his War on Poverty distracted by a real, unnecessary war, and 43 years later, we still have a permanent black underclass for the right-wing think tank loonies to blame the Great Society on!
Logically, Wilentz defense of the King-LBJ analogy falls apart because it took a Dallas assassination of a charismatic Obama-modeled president to empower that accidental president with an electoral mandate and legislative working majority to enact a "let us continue" agenda. Moreover, the very real threat of the alternative to King's non-violent resistance was already real (Watts occurred 5 days after LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act and Malcolm X had offered blacks an attractive, politically messier alternative still); but that sours the narrative that it was horse trading and cajoling that generously gave an unready country Voting Rights a decade after Brown's forced desegregation well after integration of sports and the military.
burnt @ 83:
They fought for the same reason the communist Soviets and fascist Germans fought in WW2. Communists DESPISE fascists and vice versa because they have conflicting ideological and strategic imperitives for world dominance. Fascists want to run corporations and communists want to OWN them. Communists attempt to force the workers to own everything by revolution, which in practice results in a central body to run everything in the name of the people. They make the decisions and keep everyone down to poverty. Fascism is based on a biological inheritance philosophy whereby the corporations are owned by an elite subset of society and is closed off to competitors. That is why these two ideas are incompatible. In an ideological sense they are opposed, but in both systems, regular people are not allowed to run their businesses in a free market.
SO with all due respect coming back your way, I never said YOU didn't know what you are talking about, but after reading your post you do know what your schools have taught you, which is bogus propaganda guided by incorrect and destructive philosophy.
"It’s not history anymore. It’s present day in the U.S." - Ron @ 41
Kinda looks like that doesn't it.
liberal fascism = islamo fascism
Drew @ 75:
According to the Old Testament, Robertson would be Jewish.
Socialism does not mean that the government owns all the means to production. This is where communism fractured from socialism. Why would private industry exist in Norway if government controlled all the means to production? Also, there is no such economic system defined as a "hampered market economy". Economists do not use such subjective modifiers as "hampered". Why is that a google search for "hampered market economy" lists only libertarian and Ayn Rand sites?
ashton @ 84:
"Remind me who these original neo-cons were."
Google it.
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/180
"The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism. The neocons, in the famous formulation of one of their leaders, Irving Kristol, were "liberals mugged by reality.""
Samo Umer @ 93:
Bullshit.
Seriously, he sounds like a mediocre-but-full-of-himself first-year or (maybe) second-year poli sci student. I can hardly believe he has an audience for his bullshit.
Drew @ 95:
Nice source. You couldn't name three, however.
Moose @ 94:
Socialism does not mean that the government owns the means of production? Uh, hate to break it to you (actually I don't mind, everyone should know this), but here is the definition:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/socialism
See that? No private property.
And I never said the government in Norway owns everything. I said if they truly were socialist, then they WOULD own everything, but they don't, so they are not socialist, regardless of their name. According to the Webster definition (as if we need it), Norway is a hampered market.
Oh, and I got the word "hampered" by the man who first used it: Mises.
ashton @ 98:
If I showed you three, you would have demanded five. Google it yourself. You don't think I can show you three? I am not on trial here, you are because you just say so without showing so. You don't want to accept the fact that the whole neo-con nightmare started with leftist philosophy. If you don't call yourself a democrat or Republican, then your emotions will not cloud your judgment.
The American left spent the 1930's sounding the alarm about the growing fascist threat throughout the world. They formed the Lincoln brigade to fight Franco's fascists in Spain. There were many fascist movements in other countries besides Germany and Italy: even Britain and America. After the catastrophe of WWII, the American right couldn't deny that the left had been correct in the 30's. But, they attacked the left for being "premature anti-fascists". IT IS NEVER WRONG TO BE ANTI-FASCIST. The wingnut ability to rewrite history will always be with us.
Drew, you are completely wrong about the nature of fascism. Fascism is always a symptom of falling system of finance capital. In the building of a fascist government, the most reactionary elements of the conservative movement form a terroristic dictatorship in order to protect the ruling/economic elite from economic crisis and the subsequent strengthening of worker's movements. The system of fascism always incorporates the most radical elements of similar right-wing movements including- the disdain for the working class, extreme nationalism at the cost of the lessing of value of human beings outside the country, racism/homophobic, a economic system that includes a free market (unlike the equally bad Stalinist system) yet has the corporation has the total control of the means of production, and promotes fear as a means of social control.
Even right-wide ideologues (Ron Paul has mentioned it several times) has recognized that Facism is clearly as a right-wing statist movement. The highest level of the military-industrial complex. Slander the left with loaded accusations of Stalinism all you want, but you can't turn around and call them fascist too. It's silly and full contradictions.
Drew @ 62:
That's strange, I could have sworn the Thyssen, the Krupps and other wealthy german families kept their capital, and actually benefitted quite a bit from the war economies.
I could've also sworn that unions had been busted, that workers didn't get to own the means of production, and that nationalistic sentiments were encouraged ... quite the opposite of "socialism."
You're an ignorant idiot.
just wiki "neocon"
i love the conversation level in threads like this. "i know more about politics and economics than you" equates to "my cock is bigger than yours"
Isn't it about time the attempted fascist takeover of Washington in 1933 were taught in schools?
Oh that's right goldbooger was home-schooled.
His mama's mama was probably involved in the attempt.
Barrett D @ 104:
We're gonna have a cock fight?
USSR stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
Does that mean commies are Republicans?
Kathleen @ 3:
I've said it here before and I'll say it here again - half the reason I plan on voting for Hillary is because SERIOUS ASSHOLES irrationally hate her - Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh etc. etc. I WANT her as president for my own reasons but ESPECIALLY to TORMENT THE FUCK out of these HORRIBLE individuals.
Nick @ 102:
I don't single out left or right TODAY anymore. They are one and the same. I look at it like oppressors versus oppressed. I am not slandering honest people of this country, I am simply attacking ideas that limit our freedom.
What you said does not disprove what I said, by the way. Your definitions are about right except it is loaded with imaginary "class warfare" bullshit Marx is responsible for and is one of the strongest philosophies in the world. I hate him for that because his ideas have caused so much death and suffering, especially in the countries that took up his ideas to the fullest.
In a modern market economy, there are no classes, only individuals utilizing each other's talents and efforts to produce in mass quantities, that benefits everyone. Marx believed that there is an inherent struggle between "bourgeoisie" (capitalists) and the "proletariat" (workers). The reason for this is that he was living at a time where Feudalism was still fresh in people's minds, and he thought (incorrectly) that capitalists and workers have the same antagonism as feudal landlords and serfs.
In essence, his error lied in misunderstanding the nature of profits, wages, and capital in a free society (ironically a title of one of his books). He thought that wages are the original form of income when it is actually profits that are. Because he told people that wages are the primary income, profits were seen to be a "deduction" from that which rightfully belonged to the workers. That was the basis for the struggle in people's minds.
The proof for this error is simple. If I dig a hole and build a house with the dirt and the sell it for $50, my income is $50 in profits, not wages, because I have $50 in revenues and zero costs to deduct (wages and capital). Thus my income is $50 revenue minus zero costs in the form of wages and capital = $50 profit. If I hire someone to help me, and pay them $20, then my profit becomes $50 revenue minus $20 costs in the form of wages = $30 profit.
In summary, capitalists and workers do not have an inherent struggle. Capitalists CREATE the working class. Got that? The capitalists by paying wages CREATE the working class, so how can they be AGAINST what they themselves created? It's all done voluntarily in a free society anyway.
jonsey goldbooger is an anti-semantic.
"The Goldberg Principle" -
You can prove any thesis to be true if you make up your own definitions of words.
Funny thing about goldbooger is how he blames liberals for him not being considered Jewish, when actually it's Jewish custom, in a mixed marriage the children are born Jewish only if the mother is herself, which is not in his case.
Otherwise it requires conversion, and the most conservative of Jews, the Orthodox, make it the hardest to convert.
To sort of start the story, the reason why we see fascism as a thing of the right is because fascism was originally a form of right-wing socialism. Mussolini was born a socialist, he died a socialist, he never abandoned his love of socialism, he was one of the most important socialist intellectuals in Europe and was one of the most important socialist activists in Italy, and the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I.
************************************
Oh, of course...because everyone knows that "right-wing totalitarianism" is a contradiction in terms and that it's absolutely impossible for a right-winger to be anything other than a Wise and Benevolent Leader, right?
BOLLOCKS!!!!
Goldberg is either spectacularly ignorant or he's deliberately twisting the facts in order to make them fit his argument. As my social studies teacher explained it to me back in high school, the fact is that all totalitarian governments closely resemble each other regardless of whether they are right-wing or left-wing and usually the only significant difference between them is the ostensible rationale which governments use in order to justify oppression and persecution of their own people -- however, this should not be automatically taken to mean that fascism and socialism are interchangeable or one and the same. Fascist governments such as Nazi Germany tend to claim that individual civil liberties must be sacrificed for the good of the state or the nation, whereas socialist governments tend to claim that they must be sacrificed for the good of the people as a whole. At the extreme ends of both the right-wing and the left-wing, the end result is essentially the same -- but Goldberg's interpretation of this, the idea that only leftists are capable of being dictators, is highly inaccurate if not outright duplicitous and is self-serving to boot. Here we see yet more evidence for the theory that the preferred Freudian defense mechanism of all conservatives is projection -- "we could never possibly be dictators, oh no..."
miss_kitty @ 68:
Nazis were, in part, socialists.
This doesn't mean that all socialists are fascists, but lets not try to pretend nazis didn't have socialist beliefs.
FYI, the term Nazism or Nazi comes from the germain word for National Socialism (Nationalsozialismus).
pAULO @ 89:
Understand your tongue in cheek intention---and certainly agree if Goldberg is the best they can do---they are doomed---as they should be.
Drew @ 91:
ooooh, I got served. schools are propaganda? maybe in anti-evolutionary Kansas man, but thats some serious tin hat paranoia shit right thurr, yo.
so point counterpoint buddy... you're busy "serving" a lot of people for not articulating Communism, Socialism and Fascism into the neat tidy definition buckets you've created for yourself... - a bigger retort or question for you is, do you think Jonah's right? do you think Liberals represent a threat to free will and free speech, because they're some kind of conglomerate Socio-Fascist threat to our way of life?
I guess in simpler words, are you a right wing shill coming on here to keep it real and cover your homey Jonah's back, or are you one of those petty ultra-leftists who also despises Jonah's rhetoric but its like, really really important to you to out-smart all the other posters because you put too much stock into your elevated sense of intellectualism?
no offense. I'm just curious. ;)
at the end of the day we should agree to disagree. Socialism fails (in a large, diverse populace) because the State fails to out-innovate what the people can innovate. Fascism fails (in pretty much any populace) because the innovators are afraid to step up and create a competing corporation because their only reward is kissing the boots of the State administrators.
NM @ 103:
Yes those German families benefitted highly by the fascist regime. But you have to understand that which could have existed but didn't, and then ask why. For example, OTHER POTENTIAL businesses were forbidden to compete because the fascist rulers were in charge of who owns what and what prices they can charge.
Simply making money does not make a country non-socialist and/or capitalist. Money making has existed in ALL countries since the dawn of time. What is important is not that people made money, but HOW they made that money. THAT is how you should discern socialist versus capitalist countries. Once you do that, you should be able to see why certain countries fail and why certain countries succeed. Those families were selected and/or allowed by the fascist regime to make money from those particular firms, and NOBODY ELSE WAS ALLOWED to compete.
Once again, if people make money in a country, that does not automatically mean it was capitalist.
"I know you are, but what am I? - There is some of that, I admit. . . . I'm tired of being called a fascist."
- so Goldberg says in the clip above.
Enough said.
Hey Drew,
I really don't want to go into the Marxist theory. I will mention in passing that Marx very much admitted that the bourgeoisie created proletariat, but claimed that it was a necessary yet fatal mistake in creating a class that it one day the bourgeoisie couldn't control. He was constantly used a Frankenstein analogy in this sense.
Perhaps I would only agree with Goldberg in one sense- that is that Hillary Clinton does have intellectual roots in fascism. She is clearly no better then Romney, McCain, or the rest of the fascist-lite right has set up. But who would you support in this election, Drew? I have some respect for Ron Paul among the field- not because we agree intellectually but that he honest, upright and is for the constant upkeep of our constitutional rights.
Yes, the term "Nazi" comes from the contraction of "National Socialist" but the title of the group is misleading.
The former nation we called "East Germany" was officially called (in English) "The German Democratic Republic" but they were a Soviet puppet state that was neither democratic nor a republic.
I could change my name to "Studmuffin" but it wouldn't make it true.
burnt @ 116:
Wow, you actually asked a good question and did not evade the issue. Plus you made some good points. I like your reasons why certain regimes fail.
And I am not trying to show any elevated sense of anything, I simply respond to people who tell me I have no idea what I am talking about. THAT is bullshit, because I do. That is not snobbery, because I may know this, but i know jack squat about biology. Just because I say I know one thing, doesn't mean I think it's true for everything.
So do I think Jonah is right? Yes....and no. Where he is right is that almost all "liberals" of today want more and bigger government, which today's "conservatives" absolutely hate, and rightly so. I am not a conservative or a liberal or democrat or a republican. I am a citizen who wants to be left alone and live my life the best way I can. Liberal ideas of today do not want me to be free, they want to have a larger night-watchman and steal from my already meager salary to fund the treatments for cigarette smoking cancer patients. THAT I think is absolutely disgusting about the liberals and for that they ought to be ashamed. To make matters worse, the people the liberals are electing (Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, etc) want to keep stealing my money to fund a war I don't believe in. Why should I have to pay for a war that I don't believe in? This doesn't matter to the liberals, because they can't elect a good leader even if their name was Mahatma Luther Kennedy. Today's conservatives are exactly the same, except instead of stealing my money outright, they lower taxes and instead resort to inflation and steal my money by making the things around me more expensive. I then see people complain that business is greedy and I lose my mind because I see what is true and they don't.
So in summary, I don't much care for government at all these days, that's why I like Paul...he is the only guy for change that is GOOD for my personal needs. I can't much afford what the liberals and conservatives want of me. They have already taken more than what exists, if that is even possible!
Where Jonah is wrong is his denial that the current right is doing exactly what he says is bad.
In short, what he says is bad IS bad, but he is a party hack who values loyalty over principle. For that he is wrong.
i'd like to see a real discussion, cause im not formerly educated in politics or economics. but from what i do know, germany was first fascist and second socialist. it was NOT liberal, not free market.
my grandparents grew up in nazi germany, and the german people were encouraged to be highly nationalist. the purpose was for a highly efficient economy. even at the most basic level, my grandmother told me in very simple logic. germany doesn't grow bananas. you don't need bananas. buy german grown fruit instead. to me, thats what i understood as fascism. a nationalist economy, under high government influence. you don't buy the fruit you like, you buy the fruit that helps the state - ideologically simple. i think such a state would have to be socialist, at least to start.
capitalism i thought was the opposite, where people are free to scrape their way to the top in almost anyway they see fit, a free market ect. in practice its a system influenced by eleets (but not much by government or nations - laisez faire, free trade - ideologically capitolist?)
thats all my thoughts right now.
Nick @ 119:
Paul is the only person who is honest to me, and I can see in his speeches that he really wants to leave me alone from oppression and live my life. I will vote for anyone who also has his ideas, even if their name was Adolph Lenin of the fascist baby-killers party. If they have Paul's ideas, they are alright in my books.
"Doughy pantload" I LOVE it!!! When you consider that his ONLY qualification is that his Mommy convinced Linda Tripp to convince Monica Lewinsky to save a cum stained dress... well...the mind boggles at the level of intelligent discourse that would flow from his blubbery lips. I like the attempt to disguise the fat little face with the beard too. "Doughy Pantload" Bwahahaha!
Is the Marxist theory believing that you would not belong to any Nation who would have you as a citizen?
myiq2xu @ 120:
This is the internet so go ahead and make the claim.
It's kinda like all those guys who claim to be engineers working on weapon sites spending their time trying to contradict us.
As long as there's Big Business I'm for Big Government who'll stand up for me in defense against the former.
i think a good illustration of too far left is that people support the writers strike simply because its a strike. gah! like, i support strikes as an idea, a tool. but come on i just want new episodes of House MD damnit, the writers kids are fed and will get a high level university education. i support a persons/groups right to squeeze all the pennies they think they can get, but too bad if the toil is dry. (capitalism, right?!?)
How will the writers strike affect the Springer show?
Less deep intelictual talk segments I guess?
or... more deep intelictual talk segments?
Straight from the horse's mouth: "...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage...." http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
Sounds like something Jonah and his neo-con artist buddies can agree with. Gee, who are the REAL Fascists?
----
The dizzying logic of it all just shows you why if Jonah Goldberg is one of the great thinkers on the right (and certainly, he’s has prominent enough platforms from which to spew this tripe to argue that point), the right is bankrupt of intellectual honesty and comprehension.
----
Sounds like he's a Neocon. They like to tell "noble lies" to the American public to serve their own elitist agenda. Neocons treat the American people as something to be manipulated and beneath their contempt, hence they perpetually lie to them.
- Tom
We're talkin' about this guy right? http://lonestartimes.com/images/Benzion/jonah_goldberg_in_car.jpg
Just sayin'
TomR @ 133:
Could be worse, an over-weight neocon like rash limpballs could be lying on us.
Drew @ 121:
ysbaddaden @ 110:
To ysbaddaden: Yes, he certainly hates words and kills them with glee.
To burnt: Conservatism wants smaller government? Is that why George Bush increased the government's size to Godzilla-esque proportions? The only reason Cons say smaller government is to sucker people into electing them so they can make the government their bitch.
Period.
"Fascism is corporatism" so says Benito Mussolini (the foremost theorist of fascism), the only clear definition he ever gave.
I did like Jonah's last sentence, where he said that
"simply because the nanny state wants to hug you, it doesn't mean it's not tyrannical, if you don't want to be hugged."
I think everyone would agree that this statement is true.
Honestly, I don't know why people here and the site is in such a tizzy. If you got out of your collective mindset, then his statements would be just like Obama or Edwards says on TV. What Jonah is saying is not controversial.
I think that simply because the title of his book has the words "liberal" and "facist (sic)" together, that people who strongly feel themselves as being a liberal will feel offended, like he is telling you that YOU are a fascist.
I think that if this book was titled something like "fascist libertarianism", then instead of calling the writer "poopypants", libertarians would ENGAGE the discussion and talk about why it makes no sense. Really, this post is totally trying to cloud clear judgment. Doughy Pantload? And this site thinks it is a mature political blog that speaks about the idiocy in MSM? Uh....HELLO!!!!
Hillary's plan for kids really IS like 1984, with a huge video of a politician telling you how to raise your kids. HAHAHAHAHA...if that happened anywhere else in the world, the citizens would laugh their asses off and think "how in the world can someone presume to tell others how to raise their kids without being asked?"
But some people in this country are trying desperately to make civil resistance to authority a bad thing IN ITSELF, whatever the form. Some people want OBEDIENCE, not dissent. Jonah makes an excellent point that if you look one way and focus all your attention in one direction, then fascism WILL creep into society LIKE IT ALREADY HAS BECAUSE WE ARE NOT BEING DISOBEDIENT AND QUESTIONING OF GOVERNMENT ENOUGH.
Speaking of looking the other way whilst we are REALLY getting screwed here at home, look at what a DEMOCRAT proposed in Congress just 3 days ago.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-393
Are there any liberals here that would like to defend THIS???
Of course not...just keep hating Limbaugh, Doughy Pants, and before you know it, your ass is going to the goddamn middle east to die!!!
Well it's one two three,
What are we fighting for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn!
Next stop is Vietnam (Iraq)
Well it's five, six, seven,
Open up the Pearly Gates
There ain't no time to wonder why
Woopee we're all gonna die!!!
Fuck this democrat for introducing a bill that can only be construed as LEGALIZED KIDNAPPING.
Hey, is anyone gonna chastise this democrat guy? Of course not...you just want everyone to focus on Limbaugh and O'Reilly while your elected officials treat us like animals with no soul.
Site Monitor: Might be a good idea to check dates before chastising yourself. We covered this more than a year ago.
OMG, that wasn't three days ago, it was ONE YEAR AGO!!! Holy smoke!!
Liberalism is the opposite of Fascism, so Jonah Golberg is definitely missing a lot of the picture. Liberalism has been the major force against Fascism since its conception.
That was before people tried to redefined liberalism.
Hillary Clinton is not a liberal.
Socialism is not liberalism either.
Goldberg can't be mocked and eviscerating enough. His thesis is one that any high school student at a decent school knows is BS. But he even disavows his own thesis.
Dave Neiwert's review of Goldberg's book is probably the most definitve to date, but he's dead on that Goldberg has penned a NewSpeak book. That's really his goal, to muddy the waters and try to pin fascism on liberals when it's always been conservative, by definition.
He is right to some degree about the inherent Fascist ideology behind the "we have to protect you from yourself, for the good of everyone" that is part of intrusive socialism and i suspect some progressive ideas as well though.
Which brings me back to why the liberal movement in America wants to call itself Progressive. Why is that again?
Progressive ("'progress' as we define it at all cost"?) does indeed have some Fascist undertones.
Liberalism has to do with faith in the individual as a basis. Elitist "big Goverment" socialists, theocrats and corporatists are the oppostite of that imo.
Understanding concepts and the meaning of words matters.
I hope more people recognize that the different way different people define and associate concepts and words are a root to a lot of disagreements.
His reference to Brave New World indicated he hasn't a clue what it is about. It isn't exactly that "everyone is so happy all the time." The population is forced to take drugs in order to be happy. People aren't allowed to have sex on their own, but expected to participate in large, government-run orgies. Not that there was clear logic--it seemed like he was saying BNW is a good alternative, but given Neil Postman's analysis (in Entertaining Ourselves to Death he goes into it at great length), it seemed extraordinarily stupid to throw it out there like that.
Drew @ 139:
You "covered" it...You did not say how absolutely horrible and inhumane massive kidnapping with inevitable DEATHS is, no, you instead chose to chastise the people criticizing him!!! All to support and be subservient to your masters in Washington. Maybe they're reading this right? You could not possibly go against the masters right? You would lose their support right?
You are not good people. You think you are, but you're no better than the neo-cons. I am not coming back anymore, you people are lost...you condone killing people for the sake of others without their consent. That is what a psychopath would say at his trial...
I am so sad right now...I am actually tearing up at the thought that this country is so lost...even the so-called Bush-bashers have become traitors to freedom...it seems nobody that is going to be elected is on the side of people who just want to be free...
Site Monitor: You might actually want to read before chastising. Or ask for someone to help your comprehension. No one is condoning killing. But maybe it's more fun to just misconstrue, then tear up and stomp away rather than try to understand. Your choice.
Mussolini coined the term fascism for his Fascist party. There was no word fascism until Mussolini invented it.
What an imbecile Goldberg is.
How do I get this fuckwit out of my paper? He is in it every week, at LEAST twice a week, and I'm wondering, who's agenda is being satisfied by printing someone who combines the worst stupidity with the most banal of reasoning in solving the worlds problems, anyone stupid enough to read his blather surely is not being helped by remaining an ignorant rube. So that has the be the reason he is in the paper. I would call them on it but I'm sure there are people who enjoy reading him, its their right to be dumb as a fencepost.
celsius @ 143:
Do you know what you are talking about?
republicanSScareme @ 25:
The dreaded Washington Post gave him precious space on their Outlook pages today. Well, after his dump there, not so precious.
pissed off patricia @ 19:
Yes he thinks using the media to educate people will lead to jumbotrons of Hillary telling us what to do. We're better off with American Idol.
Drew @ 62,
I think the key factor in differentiating fascism and communism from socialism is private, or governmant ownership. As Burndt alludes to in #83, In a true socialist society, the population as a whole controls production and distribution. The most difficult obstacle to socialism is the lust for money and power by one or a few. Unlimited ownership is not in the interests of a civil society.
Login or Register to post comments.