January 2008


front_cover_mini.jpgI feel like I’m spending most of my time on this blog responding to attacks to Jonah’s book on Liberal Fascism. On the one hand, I don’t mind – my book is meant as a companion piece to his, fleshing out certain arguments as well as chronicling the creation of his Liberal Fascism. And it seems that Jonah is too busy handling more intellectually weighty critiques. Still, I had hoped by this point the Liberal Fascists would have attacked me directly. It seems they are still too scared.

No matter. I will now take on a scurrilous complaint by the ever-scurrilous Dave Neiwert who, in a pathetic and desperate fit of inchoate hysteria, broadens his shameless attacks to include Jonah’s impeccable sources and scrupulous historical methodology:

One point that has already raised eyebrows is his depiction, on pp. 378-379, of the Nazi attitudes toward homosexuals:

[…]Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams write in The Pink Swastika that “the National Socialist revolution and the Nazi Party were animated and dominated by militaristic homosexuals, pederasts, pornographers, and sadomasochists.” […]

[… N]ote who Goldberg cites here: The Pink Swastika and its authors, Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Bob Moser at the SPLC has the rundown on this text, which is nothing less than a work of Holocaust revisionism […]

But Lively and Abrams are hardly the only dubious source Goldberg indulges. Indeed, another — historian A. James Gregor, known for his contention that fascism was an ideology of the left — is almost certainly the chief philosophical mentor of the book’s central thesis, which makes the same claim. Goldberg cites him twice in the text and several other times in his endnotes. […]

We can further assess Gregor’s reliability by noting that he has played a role in the past in similarly muddying the waters of public discourse — particularly, as it happens, on the subject of race and racial segregation in the South.

DO NOT read the whole thing, because Mr. Neiwert is an arrogant liberal fascist who has no serious intellectual interest in the subject of fascism. Additionally, there is no point in reading this.

I should add, before Mr. Neiwert attacks my sources and methodology, that I have based my arguments entirely on primary sources such as Hitler’s diary and The Protocols of the Elders of Haight-Ashbury, as well as back issues of The New American.  Any complaints about my methodology are therefore elitist ivory tower nonsense.  And everyone who agrees with me on everything agrees.

Advertisements

Anthony Cartouche has an eminently fair and gracious and typically thoughtful review of my book from a liberal perspective:

Since I’m a liberal, I wasn’t going to actually buy the book. I was just going to wait until Democrats came back to power, at which point jackbooted thugs would roam the cities and countryside, robbing hard-working wage-earners at gunpoint. Then someone named Peacechild or Jerry Sunshine Vibes would track me down in their Prius. Eventually they’d find me at the gay abortion clinic or the free heroin collective and just hand me a copy, along with a bowl of macrobiotic brown rice, a hacky sack with “Save the Whales” embroidered on it, and a copy of the latest Ani DiFranco CD.

But he does read it, and so breaks free of the shackles of liberal fascism. And now he has found a better, more fulfilling life under his new, post-fascist identity: Mr. LaBron James.

labronjames.jpgNow, as everyone is no doubt aware, my book is more than a very serious and thoughtful work of scholarship which represents a quantum leap beyond the usual academic standards for detail and care. But it is more than a dry, intellectual exercise for me – it is also my passion. It is my goal to free society from the curse of Liberal Fascism, to free each individual, one mind at a time. It is for this reason that I – and others who write books with a similar mission – have (seriously, thoughtfully) noted that ‘The White Man is the Jew of Liberal Fascism‘. This simple fact has been obvious to all serious observers since pretty much forever.

front_cover_mini.jpgAll serious observers, that is, except the ones whose job it is to understand this. I refer of course to the Anti-Defamation League, the group whose supposed mission it is to protect the Jewish people against bigotry and hate. And yet, heedless of the fact that the White Man is the New Jew, they seem to be obsessed with protecting just plain old Jews (who are, we may easily deduce, the White Man of Liberal Fascism)!! Not only that, while completely ignoring the people they should be protecting, they waste time worrying about what the KKK is saying about Mexicans, despite the fact that they are simply hyping the terrible threat from the Posse Comitatus, Aryan Nations and American Nazi Party and so like the bureaucrats in Office Space who think TPS reports are the most important thing in the world, they can’t seem to grasp that they’re pretty trivial. Hitler’s dead and gone – who will defend us from Hitlery Clinton? It is past time that someone reminded the ADL where their responsibilities lie.

peaceequalsnazi.jpg

front_cover_mini.jpgA clear indication of how pervasive liberal fascism has become can be found over at the American Conservative, where Austin W. Bramwell uses some Marxist tract or other as a field guide to mischaracterize Jonah Goldberg’s thoughtful, serious arguments. I challenge you to find the slightest indication of detail or care in this vicious political hate-speech:

Not without reason was Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism widely expected to be a bad book. As many predicted from the title, Goldberg does not content himself with rebuking those who call anyone who disagrees with them a fascist. Instead, he invents reasons of his own for calling anyone who disagrees with Jonah Goldberg a fascist. Liberal Fascism confirms anew George Orwell’s remark—cited by Goldberg without irony—that fascism has no meaning today other than “something not desirable.” […]

For all his striving for theoretical sophistication, Goldberg manages to come off as something of a philistine. He treats the great philosophers less as thinkers than as figurines to be arranged on a chessboard, each capable of one or two moves. […] These names do not lend Liberal Fascism gravitas so as much overweigh it with an importance it cannot bear.

To be fair, Goldberg did not come up with his ideas about liberalism on his own. He is a quintessential second-generation conservative, a man who grew up in the movement and chose to make his career within it. […]

Indeed, Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. […] Intelligent liberals will not cry foul at Liberal Fascism so much as groan. […]

[L]acking even the excuse of ignorance, he chose to sling the term “fascism” around as casually as the most vulgar leftist. It does not speak well of Goldberg that, by his own admission, he wrote his first book not to enlighten but to exact revenge.

Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg’s transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue. Perhaps it was hubris that made him do it. The last important book by a conservative was Allan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind in 1987, whose ideas had been in circulation for many years before. Goldberg may have convinced himself that by penning yet another disquisition into the “true nature of liberalism,” he could become the first movement conservative in a generation to write something lasting. In the end, he succeeded only in recycling 60 years worth of conservative movement bromides.

Whatever, Chomsky. However, as Jonah astutely points out, Mr. Bramwell is a crusty bumsicle whose face looks like a butt and he smells like a butt and he licks his own butt. Still, I note that the American Conservative has not yet reviewed my book, probably because everytime they try to consider one of the very serious and thoughtful arguments I have put forth their puny LibFasc brains explode like 4th of July fireworks.

front_cover_mini.jpgMany people – such as Avedon and Instaputz and peter ramus and Frenchy Lemieux and Pinko Punko – are starting to understand the groundbreaking nature of my book, and saying eminently fair and gracious and typically thoughtful things about it. These people have shown themselves to be serious intellectuals, capable of following a careful, detailed, highly thoughtful argument about Liberal Fascism without resorting to cheap name-calling and childish baby-food slinging hysterics as my liberal critics do. The Institute salutes you.

Many others have written in with eminently fair and gracious and typically thoughtful comments. This is one of my favorites:

Hi The Editors,

I just finished reading your book, and it has changed my life forever. I have ordered 50,000 copies of your book to stock a new library I am building with my life’s savings, a library which will contain nothing but your book. The library will be called The Liberal Fascism Library, and will be built of 50,000 bricks, where by ‘bricks’ I mean ‘more copies of your book’. And no one will be allowed to borrow a book from this library because they should buy their own copies, as well as one for everyone they know, as well as a few backups in case of flood or fire or Rapture.

Your book did, however, imply one important point, which I didn’t see you address directly, and I wondered what you had to say about it. You argue very persuasively that liberalism is in many ways the modern re-imagining of fascism. This would imply that today’s so-called ‘liberals’ are, in fact, the modern version of fascists. However, Jonah Goldberg has argued equally persuasively that George W. Bush, the leader of the country, is quite clearly a liberal. Now, if a liberal is like a fascist, and a liberal leader is therefore like a fascist leader, doesn’t that imply that George W. Bush is like Hitler? I await your thoughts.

Bonah Joldberg

Yes, indeed. Now, why can’t my liberal critics put together sophisticated arguments like this instead of being a bunch of a leftwing remoras attaching themselves to my whale of a book?

Here is a typical example of the kind of ridiculous hate-speech that has filled my inbox since Liberal Fascism was published:

DEar Moron,

You are a joke. How someone who thinks the government should be allowed to imprison and torture people without any accountability, who supports a President who makes people pledge loyalty oaths to him, parades his militarism around in phony military outfits, subverts the free press, and believes that he has essentially supreme and unchecked power to do anything he wants and answer to no one – and, oh, yeah, started a war under false pretenses – how someone like this gets off calling the people who are against all this “fascists” is completely beyond me. If you want to talk about ‘totalitarian tendencies’, why don’t you try looking in the mirror?

Some Hippy

front_cover_mini.jpgThis is typical of the mindless “Bush = Hitler!” temper tantrums which serious conservative intellectuals have been forced to endure for seven-plus years now. Trying to explain why this is nonsense makes about as much sense as trying to explain quantum physics to two-year-old, so I’m not going to waste my time. However, I would like to use this opportunity to dispel the myth that my book somehow equates liberals with fascists. This is a rank distortion and simplification of my very serious and thoughtful argument, which has, I will admit, been made before, albeit never in such detail, never with such care. This is my argument, in a nutshell:

  • Liberals are fascists.
  • I never said that liberals are fascists! In fact, if we were to face a real fascist threat, it is conceivable that liberals would oppose it, or at least possibly not actively aid it.
  • … However, it must be noted that liberalism is really an awful lot like fascism.
  • I never compared liberalism and fascism! Why are you distorting my argument?
  • … But it is interesting that Nazis and liberals both like whole grains and vegetables. Hmm… what does it mean when two supposedly distinct groups in fact have so much in common? I wonder …
  • … Also, the Nazis wore brown shirts, and Al Gore liked earth tones …
  • Wait! I have to stop you there. That’s completely outrageous! All I’m doing is saying how unfair it is that conservatives – ‘classical liberals,’ really, the kind the fascists really hated – are constantly compared to fascists. Such comparisons are childish and insulting, and cheapen our discourse. That’s my whole point! Now, go ahead and say what you were saying.
  • Oh, dear, I feel a cough coming on …
  • *coughcoughgcoughFASCISTcoughcoughcough*
  • What?!?! What?!?! That’s ridiculous! Look, you obviously have no interest in engaging my very serious and thoughtful argument in any intellectually honest way, so I’ll let you get back to saying “Heil Hillary” or whatever it is you people do when you’re not distorting people’s careful and detailed points.
  • Nazi.

How hard is it to understand? And you know, if I was really such a joke, why would people spend so much time laughing at me and making fun of everything I say? No, the simple truth is that my book is brilliant, and people fear the terrible truths contained within. They mock me because they fear me. You mock what you fear.

John Aravosis:

front_cover_mini.jpgAccording to AP, congressional leaders have reached a deal on those economic stimulus checks. And rather than being geared towards helping the economy, they’re apparently geared towards redistributing wealth (that would be our wealth) to the poor. What a surprise. Folks in the middle (i.e, those who are not rich or poor) are screwed by the Democrats (and Republicans) yet again. Let me give you the details that just leaked, and again this may not be the final deal, but it sure sounds like it:

Families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole package. Rebates would go to people earning below a certain income cap, likely individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples with incomes of $150,000 or less.

That means that if you make $75,000 or more a year, no check for you. Forget that fact that you live in NYC or DC or San Francisco, where prices from property to food are outrageous. […]

That’s because far too often the Democrats don’t give a damn about anybody who isn’t a minority or starving to death (both valid causes to be sure, but are they the ONLY causes out there?). If you’re in the middle, you’re on your own. […]

The Republicans ONLY want to help the rich, and the Democrats ONLY want to help the poor. Screw everybody else. I am so sick of these people.

I’m glad that well-off white liberals are finally beginning to wake up to the fact that liberalism and the Democrat party has launched a blitzkreig offensive against them, the first stage in a “Final Solution” to the “problem” that everybody isn’t a poor minority on welfare.  Government handouts do nothing to allieviate poverty.  The only way poor people can improve their situation is to pick themselves up by their bootstraps by having their mom hook them up with some right-wing media gigs, and then parlay that into paid public appearances and a fabulous book deal.  Optionally, one could enter the jet-set world of professional blogging, with salaries starting at $75k and up.  It’s pure laziness that keeps these people down, and we pay for it.  Via.

front_cover_mini.jpgOne of the more controversial assertions made in recent books about Liberal Fascism is that The White Man is the Jew of Liberal Fascism“. That this should be controversial at all is itself an indictment of how insidiously Liberal Fascism has perverted our culture and our discourse, but never mind. The truth of this statement is self-evident: as the Jew was persecuted in Nazi Germany, so is The White Man identified and denounced as the cause of all misfortune and evil in the world. Now, of course, I’m not saying that Whitey is literally being herded off to concentration camps or anything like that – I’m just making an analogy. And it is a very serious, thoughtful, and careful analogy, one which conforms in every important detail:

The _______ is/are the _______ of Liberal Fascism
White Man Jew
hair plugs yarmulke
white guy dance Horah
no-Jews-or-blacks-allowed country club synogogue
gated community Warsaw ghetto
College Republicans La Résistance
Brown v. Board of Education Nuremberg Laws
Chardonnay Zyklon B
acceptance letter to business school one-way train ticket to Treblinka

Now, will somebody please engage my serious arguments seriously?

« Previous PageNext Page »