Liberal Fascists

[JerrySeinfeld]

Has anyone heard of this book?

Here is a quote from the Amazon intorduction to the book:

Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.

This is so absolutely true - think of the college campuses of today with it's accepted "code" language (green language, progressivism etc.). Just one of many examples. I know I'm going to pick up a copy...

[BubberMiley]

I've already read most of it. It's pretty funny but the repeated insults to your intelligence get tiresome. He makes wild comparisons, like fascists in Germany were into organics; liberals are into organics: therefore, liberals are fascists. Some fascists were into free love; some liberals are into free love: therefore, liberals are fascists.

[Drea]

the original fascists were really on the left

The new fascists are fearmongering conservatives.

And yes, the left is very progressive in leaving behind antiquated ideas (conformity, tattling on suspicious neighbours, suspension of rights, etc) that, through much misery (Hitler), we have learned do not work.

[Black Dog]

Has anyone heard of this book?

Yeah. It's been getting panned like crazy from all sides of the spectrum, liberal and conservative

This, from the American Conservative review, is about all one needs to know:

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.

This is so absolutely true - think of the college campuses of today with it's accepted "code" language (green language, progressivism etc.).

"Absolutely" Jerry? As in, completely and without exception?

I know I'm going to pick up a copy...

Tell you what: send me the $10 and I'll confirm your preexisting biases for half the price of Goldberg's book.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The new fascists are fearmongering conservatives.

And yes, the left is very progressive in leaving behind antiquated ideas (conformity, tattling on suspicious neighbours, suspension of rights, etc) that, through much misery (Hitler), we have learned do not work.

That's classic. I'm laughing out loud - thank you!

Conformity? Not a hallmark of left wing liberalism? hahahahahahahahahaha

Suspension of rights? Like freedom of the press? Can you say Canadian Islamic Congress abuses Human Rights Comission 3 times fast?

[Sulaco]

http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/

Here is his blog re: the book.

Blubber misstates the logic chains in the book with apparent malice. Or he just hasn't read it.

[BubberMiley]

http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/

Here is his blog re: the book.

Blubber misstates the logic chains in the book with apparent malice. Or he just hasn't read it.

Tell me how I mistake the logic chain where he says Himmler encouraged his men to have sex with as many women as possible in order to spread the Aryan race, and then compares that to his perception that liberals also have sex with as many people as possible: therefore, they must be the same.

He also clearly says there was a "cult of the organic" in fascist Germany, much like there is among liberals: therefore, they are both fascist. What did I miss?

[Black Dog]

I just wonder why he didn't just title the book "Liberal Fascism: I know you are but what am I?"

Goldberg's a joke, a living, breathing textbook example of the conservative establishment's disdain for meritocracy.

[Drea]

That's classic. I'm laughing out loud - thank you!

Conformity? Not a hallmark of left wing liberalism? hahahahahahahahahaha

Suspension of rights? Like freedom of the press? Can you say Canadian Islamic Congress abuses Human Rights Comission 3 times fast?

What did the hippies (liberal buggers eh?) do for us? They certainly were not "conformists".

Ha ha ha right back atcha...

Bush has learned very much from Hitler. Hitler was a fascist, therefore Bush is a fascist. Just look at America today: "paperz pleeze".

The rightwing has slid right down the rabbit hole into fascism.

[Black Dog]

What did the hippies (liberal buggers eh?) do for us? They certainly were not "conformists".

Total non conformists, those hippies, which is why they all dressed the same, did the same drugs, listened to the same music...

Jerry's right: conformity is often a hallmark of left wing liberalism. It's also a hallmark of right-wing conservatism. Political ideologies tend to bring together people who believe the same things, which is kinda what makes them ideologies.

Suspension of rights? Like freedom of the press? Can you say Canadian Islamic Congress abuses Human Rights Comission 3 times fast?

I'm also glad to see that the left-ish posters on this board aren't the only one's prone to hysterical hyperbole and rhetorical bedwetting.

[August1991]

What did the hippies (liberal buggers eh?) do for us? They certainly were not "conformists".

The hippies got jobs as teachers and now indoctrinate children in the conformity of criticizing the establishment. Aging hippies call Bush a fascist and if anyone defends Bush, that makes them a fascist too.

To an American Liberal, an American Conservative is a rightwing Nazi fascist.

To an American Conservative, an American Liberal is a leftwing Stalinist fascist.

I'm with BD on this one. Calling someone a fascist doesn't really advance the discussion. But it does make for some smarmy third-partry comments.

[Drea]

ok blackdog, yah got me... hippies was a bad example (I was more of an Alex Keaton kinda person that a Mallory kinda person -- a preppy for those who don't know).

The younger generation is always seen as less conformist than the older generation. Tis the nature of human beings.

The current sociological trend in society is very divisive. The right calls the left fascists, the left calls the right fascists.

A fascist is:

dictionary

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

[scribblet]

That's classic. I'm laughing out loud - thank you!

Me too, it's the liberals who generally like to suppress speech etc. and hate opposing views, heck you know the definition of a racist don't you : It's someone winning an argument with a liberal.

[blueblood]

The hippies got jobs as teachers and now indoctrinate children in the conformity of criticizing the establishment. Aging hippies call Bush a fascist and if anyone defends Bush, that makes them a fascist too.

To an American Liberal, an American Conservative is a rightwing Nazi fascist.

To an American Conservative, an American Liberal is a leftwing Stalinist fascist.

I'm with BD on this one. Calling someone a fascist doesn't really advance the discussion. But it does make for some smarmy third-partry comments.

I agree.

Don't fascists also bash religion too...

[Drea]

Fascism:exalts nation and often race above the individual

...doesn't sound like a "left wing" or "socialist" ideal.

stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader

wasn't it GW who said that the best type of goverment is a dictatorship, as long as he's the dictator? *smirk*

, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

the "left" believe that the rights of the individual (human rights) outweigh the rights of the majority, so once again, this does not fit the "leftwing" ideology.

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

same as above.

The right is the "side" that advocates for more "control" over individual private human decisions. Whether it be abortion or ingesting smoke from a plant, the right seeks to intervene, no matter that the "state" is unaffected by such personal private human decisions.

The left advocates for control of human behaviour that directly affects other humans such as smoking in public, not leaving babies in cars and the like.

Edited February 1, 2008 by Drea

[marcinmoka]

I warn you Jerry, I don't think it's a picture book, so brace yourself.

Anyhow, yeah, Goldberg, of Bomb Canada : The case for war fame.

Despite his 'credentials', I have unfortunately cast him off into the same group of arrogant loud mouths such as Anne Coulter or Al Sharpton. With squat to add to the genuine debate, they merely feed off one another in an attempt to make the loudest, most obnoxious and most often idiotic commentary and pass it off to some gullible fools as being valid, intellectually stimulating debate.

But in a sense, I do admire them, but for their entrepreneurial skills, i.e. the ability to convince, with a straight face, some suckers to go out any buy their books.

[kuzadd]

Tell me how I mistake the logic chain where he says Himmler encouraged his men to have sex with as many women as possible in order to spread the Aryan race, and then compares that to his perception that liberals also have sex with as many people as possible: therefore, they must be the same.

He also clearly says there was a "cult of the organic" in fascist Germany, much like there is among liberals: therefore, they are both fascist. What did I miss?

How does he KNOW "liberals" have sex with as many people as possible?

Is he in alleged "liberals" bedrooms?

Does he follow alleged "liberals" around and watch them having sex?

I dunno, how does he draw these conclusions?

sounds like alot of baloney.

[kuzadd]

for Jerry to ponder: if original "fascists" were really on the left, perhaps this author could explain why Hitler and Mussolini both fascists, BOTH rounded up communists, social democrats and trade unionists?

Generally associated with the" left", though I prefer class struggle, but whatever?!

Just some historical fact, that the author should have checked out.

as opposed to historical revisionism this author appears to be engaged in.

Fascism thrives on rampant nationalism, abundant racism and the dsillusionment of the middle class, who are then willing to scapegoat anyone.

Sound familiar?

Fascism emerged as a "third way" — as Italy's last hope to avoid imminent collapse of 'weak' Italian liberalism or communist revolution.

Mussolini's armed thugs, instantly recognizable in their black shirts, become much feared. Their violence at this stage is mainly directed against socialists of all kinds (communists and democratic socialists are tarred with the same brush). The authorities, obsessively concerned with the supposed threat from the extreme left wing, turn a blind eye to the illegal activities of the right-wing blackshirts.

He is given a perfect opportunity in August 1922 when the trade unions and the socialist parties call a general strike in opposition to the Fascists. The strike is broken, to the approval of much of the public, by armed gangs of blackshirts (officially referred to as squadre d'azione) who take over essential services.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainT...;HistoryID=ac52

Edited February 1, 2008 by kuzadd

[White Doors]

Liberalism IS fundamentally more dangerous than traditional Conservatism for the following simple reason:

Liberals and the left are much more likely to believe in a big, central, strong government.

Conservatives are ideologically more entranced around the individual.

People, as groups, commit much more evil and harm than do individuals would as a whole.

That is a valid point and one of the main reasons why I have always advocated for a small government that enabled individuals to succeed. Not a large government that 'enabled' the citizens itself and thus becoming part of the group.

[charter.rights]

Liberalism IS fundamentally more dangerous than traditional Conservatism for the following simple reason:

Liberals and the left are much more likely to believe in a big, central, strong government.

Conservatives are ideologically more entranced around the individual.

People, as groups, commit much more evil and harm than do individuals would as a whole.

That is a valid point and one of the main reasons why I have always advocated for a small government that enabled individuals to succeed. Not a large government that 'enabled' the citizens itself and thus becoming part of the group.

That is the "big Conservative myth".

The fact is that it is under Conservative governments that the most restrictive legislation gets passed. It is under Conservative governments where the most money gets spent, thereby creating more dependence on governments. And it is under the Conservative governments where governments operate under secrecy away from public scrutiny.

One would think that if Conservative governments held the individual in higher esteem that they would not seek to restrict them, remove and abrogate their rights, and lean towards a police state. That is why ultra-conservatism always leads to fascism.

Edited February 1, 2008 by charter.rights

[kuzadd]

That is the "big Conservative myth".

The fact is that it is under Conservative governments that the most restrictive legislation gets passed. It is under Conservative governments where the most money gets spent, thereby creating more dependence on governments. And it is under the Conservative governments where governments operate under secrecy away from public scrutiny.

One would think that if Conservative governments held the individual in higher esteem that they would not seek to restrict them, remove and abrogate their rights, and lean towards a police state. That is why ultra-conservatism always leads to fascism.

one need only look at George Bush, who has a very big spending, big secret , big budget, big deficit, etc.,

But hey, it's better to buy falsehoods, then look at facts.

[White Doors]

That is the "big Conservative myth".

The fact is that it is under Conservative governments that the most restrictive legislation gets passed. It is under Conservative governments where the most money gets spent, thereby creating more dependence on governments. And it is under the Conservative governments where governments operate under secrecy away from public scrutiny.

One would think that if Conservative governments held the individual in higher esteem that they would not seek to restrict them, remove and abrogate their rights, and lean towards a police state. That is why ultra-conservatism always leads to fascism.

cite?

[White Doors]

one need only look at George Bush, who has a very big spending, big secret , big budget, big deficit, etc.,

But hey, it's better to buy falsehoods, then look at facts.

Exactly why he has eroded so much of his support in the republican party.

He was pretty left wing in his spending on social programs.

[Black Dog]

He was pretty left wing in his spending on social programs.

Like the $500B he's spent to date on Iraq?

Oh, sorry: I forgot that when conservatives talk about the evils of big government, they are talking about non-military spending.

[blueblood]

Like the $500B he's spent to date on Iraq?

Oh, sorry: I forgot that when conservatives talk about the evils of big government, they are talking about non-military spending.

Well some lefties spent a pile on huge militaries as well. The USSR and China come to mind, their proxy wars with the states weren't free either.

Yah I'd say that's one problem with big gov't spending. GW is dropping money like it's hot, like a so-called left winger.

A fiscal conservative would say geez that war in Iraq is costing a pile of money, too much.

I don't know what GW will get for a return on his "war investment"