On Nov 18, 10:52*pm, wrote:
" Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From
Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning"

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascis...ow/124122.html

Heil Hitler (get used to it)

Read the following article to get a good grip on what the majority of
reviewers thought about the book and it's "bizarro" interpretation of
history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism

On Nov 19, 8:14*pm, Mike wrote:
On Nov 18, 10:52*pm, wrote:

" Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From
Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning"

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascis...i-Politics/dp/...

Heil Hitler (get used to it)

Read the following article to get a good grip on what the majority of
reviewers thought about the book and it's "bizarro" interpretation of
history:

Wikipedia - where everyone and anyone is a professor - ROTFLMAO!!!!

Hey dumb ass!
Read the comments by people who actually know how to read and actually
read the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascis...i-Politics/dp/

Of course like you and all idiotic Liberal Fascists, using your own
brain to read and come to your own conclusions is out of the question.

On Nov 19, 8:14*pm, Mike wrote:
On Nov 18, 10:52*pm, wrote:

" Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From
Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning"

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascis...i-Politics/dp/...

Heil Hitler (get used to it)

Read the following article to get a good grip on what the majority of
reviewers thought about the book and it's "bizarro" interpretation of
history:

Wikipedia - where everyone and anyone is a professor - ROTFLMAO!!!!

Hey dumb ass!
Read the comments by people who actually know how to read and actually
read the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascis...dp/0385511841/

Of course like you and all idiotic Liberal Fascists, using your own
brain to read and come to your own conclusions is out of the question.

From Publishers Weekly
In this provocative and well-researched book, Goldberg probes modern
liberalism's spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics.
With chapter titles such as Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left and Brave
New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism—
Goldberg argues that fascism has always been a phenomenon of the left.
This is Goldberg's first book, and he wisely curbs his wry National
Review style. Goldberg's study of the conceptual overlap between
fascism and ideas emanating from the environmental movement,
Hollywood, the Democratic Party and what he calls other left-wing
organs is shocking and hilarious. He lays low such lights of liberal
history as Margaret Sanger, apparently a radical eugenicist, and JFK,
whose cult of personality, according to Goldberg, reeks of fascist
political theater. Much of this will be music to conservatives' ears,
but other readers may be stopped cold by the parallels Goldberg draws
between Nazi Germany and the New Deal. The book's tone suffers as it
oscillates between revisionist historical analyses and the application
of fascist themes to American popular culture; nonetheless, the
controversial arc Goldberg draws from Mussolini to The Matrix is well-
researched, seriously argued—and funny.

From The Washington Post
National Review editor Jonah Goldberg says he is fed up with liberals
calling him a fascist. Who can blame him? Hurling the calumny
"fascist!" at American conservatives is not fair. But Goldberg's
response is no better. He lobs the f-word back at liberals, though
after each of his many attacks he is at pains to say that they are not
"evil" fascists, they just share a family resemblance. It's family
because American liberals are descendants of the early 20th-century
Progressives, who in turn shared intellectual roots with fascists. He
adds that both fascists and liberals seek to use the state to solve
the problems of modern society.

Scholars would support Goldberg in certain respects. He is correct
that many fascists, including Mussolini (but not Hitler) started as
socialists -- though almost none started as liberals, who stood for
representative government and mild reformism. Moreover, fascism's
combination of nationalism, statism, discipline and a promise to
"transcend" class conflict was initially popular in many countries.
Though fascism was always less popular in democracies such as the
United States, some American intellectuals did flirt with its ideas.
Goldberg quotes progressives and liberals who did, but he does not
quote the conservatives who also did. He is right to note that fascist
party programs contained active social welfare policies to be
implemented through a corporatist state, so there were indeed overlaps
with Progressives and with New Dealers. But so, too, were there
overlaps with the world's Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, as
well as with the British Conservative Party from Harold Macmillan in
the 1930s to Prime Minister Ted Heath in the 1970s, and even with the
Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. Are they all to earn the f-word?

The only thing these links prove is that fascism contained elements
that were in the mainstream of 20th-century politics. Following
Goldberg's logic, I could rewrite this book and berate American
liberals not for being closet fascists but for being closet
conservatives or closet Christian Democrats. But that would puzzle
Americans, not shock them. Shock, it seems, sells books.

What really distinguished fascists from other mainstream movements of
the time were proud, "principled" -- as they saw it -- violence and
authoritarianism. Fascists took their model of governance from their
experience as soldiers and officers in World War I. They believed that
disciplined violence, military comradeship and obedience to leaders
could solve society's problems. Goldberg finds similarities between
fascism's so-called "third way" -- neither capitalism nor socialism --
and liberals who use the same phrase today to signify an attempt to
compromise between business and labor. But there is a fundamental
difference. The fascist solution was not brokered compromise but
forcibly knocking heads together. Italian fascists formed a
paramilitary, not a political, party. The Nazis did have a separate
party, but alongside two paramilitaries, the SA and the SS, whose
first mission was to attack and, if necessary, to kill socialists,
communists and liberals. In reality, the fascists knocked labor's
head, not capital's. The Nazis practiced on the left for their later
killing of Jews, gypsies and others. And all fascists proudly
proclaimed the "leadership principle," hailing dictatorship and
totalitarianism.

It is hard to find American counterparts, especially among liberals.
Father Coughlin and Huey Long (discussed by Goldberg) were tempted by
a proto-fascist authoritarian populism in the 1930s. Some white
Southerners (not discussed) embraced violence and authoritarianism, as
did the Weathermen and the Black Panthers (discussed) and rightist
militias (not discussed). Neocons (not discussed) today endorse
militarism. Liberals have rarely supported violence, militarism or
authoritarianism, because they are doves and wimps -- or at least that
is what both conservatives and socialists usually say. To assert that
the Social Security Act or Medicare shows a leaning toward
totalitarianism is ridiculous. The United States, along with the rest
of the Anglo-Saxon and Northwestern European world, has been protected
from significant fascist influences by the shared commitment of
liberals, conservatives and social democrats to democracy. Fascism is
not an American, British, Dutch, Scandinavian, Canadian, Australian or
New Zealand vice. It only spread significantly in one-half of Europe,
with some lesser influence in China, Japan, South America and South
Africa. Today it is alive in very few places.

A few of Goldberg's assaults make some minimal sense; others are
baffling. He culminates with an attack on Hillary Clinton. He quotes
from a 1993 college commencement address of hers: "We need a new
politics of meaning. We need a new ethos of individual responsibility
and caring. We need a new definition of civil society which answers
the unanswerable questions posed by both the market forces and the
governmental ones, as to how we can have a society that fills us up
again and makes us feel that we are part of something bigger than
ourselves." Such vacuous politician-speak could come from any
centrist, whether Republican or Democrat. But Goldberg bizarrely says
it embodies "the most thoroughly totalitarian conception of politics
offered by a leading American political figure in the last half
century." Is he serious? He then quotes briefly from her book It Takes
A Village. "The village," she wrote, "can no longer be defined as a
place on the map, or a list of people or organizations, but its
essence remains the same: it is the network of values and
relationships that support and affect our lives." One may question
whether that is a profound definition or a banal one, but does it
deserve Goldberg's comment that here "the concept of civil society is
grotesquely deformed"? Whatever Sen. Clinton's weaknesses, she is
neither a totalitarian nor an enemy of civil society.

In an apparent attempt at balance, Goldberg indulges in very mild and
brief criticism of conservatives who are tempted by compassionate
(i.e., social) conservatism, though here he uniquely refrains from
using the f-word. In the book's final pages, he reveals his neo-
liberalism (though he does not use the term). Since neo-liberalism,
with its insistence on unfettered global trade and minimal government
regulation of economic and social life, merely restates 19th-century
laissez-faire, it is in fact the only contemporary political
philosophy that significantly pre-dates both socialism and fascism.
Unlike modern liberalism or modern conservatism, it shares not even a
remote family resemblance with them. That is the only sense I can make
of his overall argument.

But a final word of advice. If you want to denigrate the Democrats'
health care plans or Al Gore's environmental activism, try the word
"socialism." That is tried and tested American abuse. "Fascism" will
merely baffle Americans -- and rightly so.

On Nov 20, 8:27*am, wrote:

Wikipedia - where everyone and anyone is a professor - ROTFLMAO!!!!

Hey dumb ass!
Read the comments by people who actually know how to read and actually
read the book.


Of course like you and all idiotic Liberal Fascists, using your own
brain to read and come to your own conclusions is out of the question.



Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative: "Not only does
Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as
liberalism... 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."[17]

In The Nation, Eric Alterman complained that Goldberg's grouping of
left-wing politics with fascism is based on weak, tenuous
associations: "Some fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are
vegetarians; ergo... Some fascists were gay; some liberals are gay...
Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about
educating children. Aha! . . . This is a book that argues that Woodrow
Wilson 'was the twentieth century's first fascist dictator' and that
it is 'impossible to deny that the New Deal was objectively
fascistic.'"[18]

Blogger and journalist David Neiwert, writing in The American
Prospect, called the book "bizarro history" and "classic Newspeak." He
wrote: "The title alone is enough to indicate its thoroughgoing
incoherence: Of all the things we know about fascism and the traits
that comprise it, one of the few things that historians will readily
agree upon is its overwhelming anti-liberalism."[19]

David Oshinsky of The New York Times wrote: "Liberal Fascism is less
an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political
revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg
from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence
that deals in ideas as well as insults - no mean feat in the nasty
world of the culture wars."[20]

Michael Tomasky wrote in The New Republic, "...I can report with a
clear conscience that Liberal Fascism is one of the most tedious and
inane--and ultimately self-negating--books that I have ever read. ...
Liberal Fascism is a document of a deeply frivolous culture, or sub-
culture."[21]


Dude, Lockheed called. They wanted me to ask you to get back to work.

Gee, you are a moron! You didn't even read your own cut-and-paste!
Your long quote is a critique of Goldberg - it explains why he is
wrong. You win the award for the biggest moron I've seen in 2008!

I'm saving your post to show students the dangers of not reading what
you post to the internet. Have you ever had your IQ measured? It must
be in the "imaginary" range.

ROFL!

Nov 20, 8:27*am, wrote:
On Nov 19, 8:14*pm, Mike wrote:

On Nov 18, 10:52*pm, wrote:

" Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From
Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning"

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascis...i-Politics/dp/....

Heil Hitler (get used to it)

Read the following article to get a good grip on what the majority of
reviewers thought about the book and it's "bizarro" interpretation of
history:

Wikipedia - where everyone and anyone is a professor - ROTFLMAO!!!!

Hey dumb ass!
Read the comments by people who actually know how to read and actually
read the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascis...i-Politics/dp/...

Of course like you and all idiotic Liberal Fascists, using your own
brain to read and come to your own conclusions is out of the question.

From Publishers Weekly
In this provocative and well-researched book, Goldberg probes modern
liberalism's spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics.
With chapter titles such as Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left and Brave
New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism—
Goldberg argues that fascism has always been a phenomenon of the left.
This is Goldberg's first book, and he wisely curbs his wry National
Review style. Goldberg's study of the conceptual overlap between
fascism and ideas emanating from the environmental movement,
Hollywood, the Democratic Party and what he calls other left-wing
organs is shocking and hilarious. He lays low such lights of liberal
history as Margaret Sanger, apparently a radical eugenicist, and JFK,
whose cult of personality, according to Goldberg, reeks of fascist
political theater. Much of this will be music to conservatives' ears,
but other readers may be stopped cold by the parallels Goldberg draws
between Nazi Germany and the New Deal. The book's tone suffers as it
oscillates between revisionist historical analyses and the application
of fascist themes to American popular culture; nonetheless, the
controversial arc Goldberg draws from Mussolini to The Matrix is well-
researched, seriously argued—and funny.

From The Washington Post
National Review editor Jonah Goldberg says he is fed up with liberals
calling him a fascist. Who can blame him? Hurling the calumny
"fascist!" at American conservatives is not fair. But Goldberg's
response is no better. He lobs the f-word back at liberals, though
after each of his many attacks he is at pains to say that they are not
"evil" fascists, they just share a family resemblance. It's family
because American liberals are descendants of the early 20th-century
Progressives, who in turn shared intellectual roots with fascists. He
adds that both fascists and liberals seek to use the state to solve
the problems of modern society.

Scholars would support Goldberg in certain respects. He is correct
that many fascists, including Mussolini (but not Hitler) started as
socialists -- though almost none started as liberals, who stood for
representative government and mild reformism. Moreover, fascism's
combination of nationalism, statism, discipline and a promise to
"transcend" class conflict was initially popular in many countries.
Though fascism was always less popular in democracies such as the
United States, some American intellectuals did flirt with its ideas.
Goldberg quotes progressives and liberals who did, but he does not
quote the conservatives who also did. He is right to note that fascist
party programs contained active social welfare policies to be
implemented through a corporatist state, so there were indeed overlaps
with Progressives and with New Dealers. But so, too, were there
overlaps with the world's Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, as
well as with the British Conservative Party from Harold Macmillan in
the 1930s to Prime Minister Ted Heath in the 1970s, and even with the
Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. Are they all to earn the f-word?

The only thing these links prove is that fascism contained elements
that were in the mainstream of 20th-century politics. Following
Goldberg's logic, I could rewrite this book and berate American
liberals not for being closet fascists but for being closet
conservatives or closet Christian Democrats. But that would puzzle
Americans, not shock them. Shock, it seems, sells books.

What really distinguished fascists from other mainstream movements of
the time were proud, "principled" -- as they saw it -- violence and
authoritarianism. Fascists took their model of governance from their
experience as soldiers and officers in World War I. They believed that
disciplined violence, military comradeship and obedience to leaders
could solve society's problems. Goldberg finds similarities between
fascism's so-called "third way" -- neither capitalism nor socialism --
and liberals who use the same phrase today to signify an attempt to
compromise between business and labor. But there is a fundamental
difference. The fascist solution was not brokered compromise but
forcibly knocking heads together. Italian fascists formed a
paramilitary, not a political, party. The Nazis did have a separate
party, but alongside two paramilitaries, the SA and the SS, whose
first mission was to attack and, if necessary, to kill socialists,
communists and liberals. In reality, the fascists knocked labor's
head, not capital's. The Nazis practiced on the left for their later
killing of Jews, gypsies and others. And all fascists proudly
proclaimed the "leadership principle," hailing dictatorship and
totalitarianism.

It is hard to find American counterparts, especially among liberals.
Father Coughlin and Huey Long (discussed by Goldberg) were tempted by
a proto-fascist authoritarian populism in the 1930s. Some white
Southerners (not discussed) embraced violence and authoritarianism, as
did the Weathermen and the Black Panthers (discussed) and rightist
militias (not discussed). Neocons (not discussed) today endorse
militarism. Liberals have rarely supported violence, militarism or
authoritarianism, because they are doves and wimps -- or at least that
is what both conservatives and socialists usually say. To assert that
the Social Security Act or Medicare shows a leaning toward
totalitarianism is ridiculous. The United States, along with the rest
of the Anglo-Saxon and Northwestern European world, has been protected
from significant fascist influences by the shared commitment of
liberals, conservatives and social democrats to democracy. Fascism is
not an American, British, Dutch, Scandinavian, Canadian, Australian or
New Zealand vice. It only spread significantly in one-half of Europe,
with some lesser influence in China, Japan, South America and South
Africa. Today it is alive in very few places.

A few of Goldberg's assaults make some minimal sense; others are
baffling. He culminates with an attack on Hillary Clinton. He quotes
from a 1993 college commencement address of hers: "We need a new
politics of meaning. We need a new ethos of individual responsibility
and caring. We need a new definition of civil society which answers
the unanswerable questions posed by both the market forces and the
governmental ones, as to how we can have a society that fills us up
again and makes us feel that we are part of something bigger than
ourselves." Such vacuous politician-speak could come from any
centrist, whether Republican or Democrat. But Goldberg bizarrely says
it embodies "the most thoroughly totalitarian conception of politics
offered by a leading American political figure in the last half
century." Is he serious? He then quotes briefly from her book It Takes
A Village. "The village," she wrote, "can no longer be defined as a
place on the map, or a list of people or organizations, but its
essence remains the same: it is the network of values and
relationships that support and affect our lives." One may question
whether that is a profound definition or a banal one, but does it
deserve Goldberg's comment that here "the concept of civil society is
grotesquely deformed"? Whatever Sen. Clinton's weaknesses, she is
neither a totalitarian nor an enemy of civil society.

In an apparent attempt at balance, Goldberg indulges in very mild and
brief criticism of conservatives who are tempted by compassionate
(i.e., social) conservatism, though here he uniquely refrains from
using the f-word. In the book's final pages, he reveals his neo-
liberalism (though he does not use the term). Since neo-liberalism,
with its insistence on unfettered global trade and minimal government
regulation of economic and social life, merely restates 19th-century
laissez-faire, it is in fact the only contemporary political
philosophy that significantly pre-dates both socialism and fascism.
Unlike modern liberalism or modern conservatism, it shares not even a
remote family resemblance with them. That is the only sense I can make
of his overall argument.

But a final word of advice. If you want to denigrate the Democrats'
health care plans or Al Gore's environmental activism, try the word
"socialism." That is tried and tested American abuse. "Fascism" will
merely baffle Americans -- and rightly so.