Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left,

[amicus]

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bo...385511841&ourl=Liberal-Fascism/Jonah-Goldberg

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

Synopsis

“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?

Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. 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.

~~~

For Oggbashan and others who questioned the accuracty of, "Liberal Fascists",
interesting, eh?

Do you find the bolded portions strikingly similar to your political philosophy?

This is the tag, the box, the description that best fits. Wear it with pride.

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hitler was a socialist, Goebbels was a Marxist.

 

[oggbashan]

Amicus,

The Nazis NSDAP (in English translation) were the National Socialist Democratic Workers Party.

They were not Fascists - that was the Italians and the Spanish - based on the Fasces of Imperial Rome.

The name of the Nazi Party was deliberately chosen to be all things to all people and effectively meaningless in German because it included virtually everything.

A modern US equivalent of the NAZI political party's name would be the Patriotic Democratic Republican Yankee Confederate Native American Hispanic all-for-mom-and-apple-pie Party.

The Nazis were experts in propaganda. After the Roman Catholic Church they were the world's best at it. They knew that their party's name was meaningless and all-encompassing and traded on it.

The Nazi name proves - NOTHING.

Og

PS. The bolded portion of your post doesn't represent my beliefs - only what YOU think and keep stating my beliefs are. You don't read what I say - you read what you think I should say.

Edited for PPS: You may not have noticed, but I'm not American. What relevance has an attack on US political parties got to do with me?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I get my information from John Toland's biography of Hitler. I checked it with a biography of Goebbels, and the biography confirmed Goebbels was a Marxist. Hitler distinguisted the Nazis from the communists by claiming that the Nazis were German socialists NOT Moscow socialists.

Hitler also said that you can call yourself whatever you want so long as the results match your politics. So he did tailor his sales pitch to different groups to win their support.

But I cant imagine Hitler lying.

Hey OGG? How was Hitler different from Josef Stalin? Gimme one significant difference.

 

[oggbashan]

...Hitler also said that you can call yourself whatever you want so long as the results match your politics. So he did tailor his sales pitch to different groups to win their support.

But I cant imagine Hitler lying.

Hey OGG? How was Hitler different from Josef Stalin? Gimme one significant difference.

Hitler was originally elected in a free and fair democratic election.

Og

PS Edited for a second difference: Stalin honoured international treaty agreements. In dealing with other countries he may have been a tough SOB but he was an honest SOB. Hitler made treaty agreements knowing that he would break them.

 

[Liar]

Hitler was originally elected in a free and fair democratic election.

That, and a much gayer moustache.

 

[amicus]

It seems beyond doubt to me that the symptoms of liberal fascism, indicate that the name should be applied.

~~~

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.

~~~

Have fun trying to wiggle out of that. When the individual is sacrificed to the State, the outcome is similar in all circumstances. If it looks, walks and quacks like one, it prolly is one.



ami

 

[Guest]

It seems beyond doubt to me that the symptoms of liberal fascism, indicate that the name should be applied.

~~~

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.

~~~

Have fun trying to wiggle out of that. When the individual is sacrificed to the State, the outcome is similar in all circumstances. If it looks, walks and quacks like one, it prolly is one.



ami

Wow... somebody wrote a book! Well, everything in MUST be true, then, kinda like if we saw it on TV.

For the record, here's an excerpt from a review of said book by the New York Times:

"Is something missing here? Goldberg races from Wilson to Roosevelt to Kennedy and on to Bill Clinton with barely a glance at what happened in between. The reason is simple: for Goldberg, fascism is strictly a Democratic disease....
"Goldberg briefly enters the Eisenhower 1950s to tease liberals for whining about the supposedly trivial impact of McCarthyism. “A few Hollywood writers who’d supported Stalin and then lied about it lost their jobs,” he says. What’s the big deal? For the Reagan 1980s there is near-silence — hardly a word. I had entertained the slim hope that Goldberg might consider the “fascist” cult of personality surrounding Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” hokum (“Prouder, Stronger, Better”). But, alas, such scrutiny is reserved only for the Clinton presidential campaign of 1992, with its “Riefenstahlesque film of a teenage Bill Clinton shaking hands with President Kennedy.” Indeed, even George W. Bush’s spectacularly staged landing on an aircraft carrier in full battle regalia to declare “mission accomplished” in Iraq escapes notice here. It doesn’t take a village for Goldberg to play the fascist card; a single Democrat will do."

Pardon me if I don't get all het up about your boy and his book.

 

[amicus]

It really is not about the book at all, Gnome; it is my characterization of the left as 'liberal fascists', by definition, as illustrated by the bolded portion of my post.

If the author of the book had desired to present a history text, or, if I, in my posts, wished to provide both sides of an argument, it would rather defeat the intent, would it not?

I can always depend, so it seems, on my opponents here, to either evade the message or mount a personal attack, rather than deal with the issues I present.

Such a deal!

ami

 

[S-Des]

Wow... somebody wrote a book! Well, everything in MUST be true, then, kinda like if we saw it on TV.

For the record, here's an excerpt from a review of said book by the New York Times....
..........Pardon me if I don't get all het up about your boy and his book.

First of all, he's not Ami's "Boy," he's considered one of the brightest Conservative minds by Bill Maher, the LA Times, and about a hundred other sources. Second, you mean the NY Times didn't like a book written by a Conservative that criticized Liberals? Holy shit.....that IS shocking.

The book isn't a hit piece on Liberals, merely a historical look at where the word Fascism had it's origins, what historical figures were identified with it (either by themselves or others), and how the definition has changed over the decades. You should read it if you have the chance. Goldberg is really quite brilliant, even if he's not someone you agree with.

 

[Guest]

It really is not about the book at all, Gnome; it is my characterization of the left as 'liberal fascists', by definition, as illustrated by the bolded portion of my post.

If the author of the book had desired to present a history text, or, if I, in my posts, wished to provide both sides of an argument, it would rather defeat the intent, would it not?

I can always depend, so it seems, on my opponents here, to either evade the message or mount a personal attack, rather than deal with the issues I present.

Such a deal!

ami

WHAT issue? You co-opted a phrase and flung it in people's faces. When rebuttal was offered, you handily quoted a book by an author who admitted in an interview that it's "revisionist history" and who, as the cited review demonstrated, refuses to apply his "fascist" label to anyone but people he identifies as "liberal." It should also be noted that another reviewer found the connections he makes between liberals and fascists are tenuous at best and demonstrate remarkably faulty logic.

If you present a source, expect it to be examined and potentially discredited; pretended disingenuousness doesn't become you.

I prefer not to live my life by attempting to pigeonhole people to fit my preconceptions. Based on your posts, you seem to be uncomfortable living any other way.

 

[DesertPirate]

First of all, he's not Ami's "Boy," he's considered one of the brightest Conservative minds by Bill Maher, the LA Times, and about a hundred other sources. Second, you mean the NY Times didn't like a book written by a Conservative that criticized Liberals? Holy shit.....that IS shocking.

The book isn't a hit piece on Liberals, merely a historical look at where the word Fascism had it's origins, what historical figures were identified with it (either by themselves or others), and how the definition has changed over the decades. You should read it if you have the chance. Goldberg is really quite brilliant, even if he's not someone you agree with.

Gee a rational comment. Thanks Des.

 

[cloudy]

he's considered one of the brightest Conservative minds

Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

[DesertPirate]

I think the moron is a lefty.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Wow... somebody wrote a book! Well, everything in MUST be true, then, kinda like if we saw it on TV.

For the record, here's an excerpt from a review of said book by the New York Times:

"Is something missing here? Goldberg races from Wilson to Roosevelt to Kennedy and on to Bill Clinton with barely a glance at what happened in between. The reason is simple: for Goldberg, fascism is strictly a Democratic disease....
"Goldberg briefly enters the Eisenhower 1950s to tease liberals for whining about the supposedly trivial impact of McCarthyism. “A few Hollywood writers who’d supported Stalin and then lied about it lost their jobs,” he says. What’s the big deal? For the Reagan 1980s there is near-silence — hardly a word. I had entertained the slim hope that Goldberg might consider the “fascist” cult of personality surrounding Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” hokum (“Prouder, Stronger, Better”). But, alas, such scrutiny is reserved only for the Clinton presidential campaign of 1992, with its “Riefenstahlesque film of a teenage Bill Clinton shaking hands with President Kennedy.” Indeed, even George W. Bush’s spectacularly staged landing on an aircraft carrier in full battle regalia to declare “mission accomplished” in Iraq escapes notice here. It doesn’t take a village for Goldberg to play the fascist card; a single Democrat will do."

Pardon me if I don't get all het up about your boy and his book.

Ditto that for me.....Amicus.....your boy Goldberg suffers from some selective editing of the facts as well as some twisting them to suit his misguided agenda.....So Ditto what Gnome said.....I couldn't say it any better.....

 

[Dragonlipz]

WHAT issue? You co-opted a phrase and flung it in people's faces. When rebuttal was offered, you handily quoted a book by an author who admitted in an interview that it's "revisionist history" and who, as the cited review demonstrated, refuses to apply his "fascist" label to anyone but people he identifies as "liberal." It should also be noted that another reviewer found the connections he makes between liberals and fascists are tenuous at best and demonstrate remarkably faulty logic.

If you present a source, expect it to be examined and potentially discredited; pretended disingenuousness doesn't become you.

I prefer not to live my life by attempting to pigeonhole people to fit my preconceptions. Based on your posts, you seem to be uncomfortable living any other way.

Mega-Dittos Gnome.....you rock while these FOX boys roll to the ROVARIAN groupspeak/echochamber

 

[amicus]

Gnome...I refer you back to the bolded portion.

Those were positions on issues taken by Fascists; do you debate that?

They are also the positions taken by modern liberals; do you debate that?

And that is the point. That modern left wing liberals mirror the philosophy of the Fascists of Nazi Germany.

Even you should be able to connect the dots.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

A fascist political system means a dictator runs things. Thats all it means. A monarch can be fascist. It's also nationalistic, as opposed to Moscow or Sino communists.

 

[sr71plt]

A fascist political system means a dictator runs things. Thats all it means. A monarch can be fascist. It's also nationalistic, as opposed to Moscow or Sino communists.

And if the liberals around here were fascists, guess which posters would be disappeared? Sort of negates that, doesn't it?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Sr71plt

you People Cant Get 4 Jungle Bunnies Out Of A Boat, What Chance Do You Stand With Me?

 

[sr71plt]

Sr71plt

you People Cant Get 4 Jungle Bunnies Out Of A Boat, What Chance Do You Stand With Me?

Oh, I'd leave you in the boat.

 

[amicus]

Heh...JBJ..you made me laugh again...Thanks! I needed that!



ami

 

[Pure]

bzzzt

amicus quoting goldberg.

[Nazis] They loathed the free market?

No: Hitler left the major companies, i g farben, volkwagen, etc, in private hands. Stockholders made profits. He allied with capitalists, in cluding some American ones like Henry Ford and the Prescott Bush. There were some wartime controls, as in the US.

Stalin had the gov't OWN and directly control all the major industrial companies.

[Nazis]
supported abortion

actually, not. just abortions of the inferior and defective. they wanted lots of good aryan babies and even had them fathered out of wedlock by selected specimens (lebensborn program).

incidentally, i think stalin opposed abortions, at least early on.

it's a feature of totalitarians to make women into baby factories, which is what amicus, falwell, robertson, jindal, palin want to do. palin has started daughter on the road early.

==

incidentally, it's a feature mentioned in all defs of fascism, including jbj's above, NATIONALISM. one doesn't need a map to see which political party includes the superpatriots, and those who accuse others of being socialists [see today's paper] and traitors.

http://www.businessopportunitystart...an’s-socialist-label-ignores-double-standard/

In a speech he gave at his home district, Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., the ranking Republican, Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-Mass.) counterpart, on the House Banking Committee, said there were 17 socialists among him and his colleagues in the House


who raises the issue of whether Obama's hand was over his heart in one ceremony?

 

[Pure]

to keep words from getting entirely bent out of shape

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568245/fascism.html

Fascism

Encyclopedia Article


I Introduction
Print this section

Fascism, modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence.

The term fascism was first used by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in 1919. The term comes from the Italian word fascio, which means “union” or “league.” It also refers to the ancient Roman symbol of power, the fasces, a bundle of sticks bound to an ax, which represented civic unity and the authority of Roman officials to punish wrongdoers.

Fascist movements surfaced in most European countries and in some former European colonies in the early 20th century. Fascist political parties and movements capitalized on the intense patriotism that emerged as a response to widespread social and political uncertainty after World War I (1914-1918) and the Russian Revolution of 1917. With the important exceptions of Italy and Germany, however, fascist movements failed in their attempts to seize political power. In Italy and Germany after World War I, fascists managed to win control of the state and attempted to dominate all of Europe, resulting in millions of deaths in the Holocaust and World War II (1939-1945). Because fascism had a decisive impact on European history from the end of World War I until the end of the World War II, the period from 1918 to 1945 is sometimes called the fascist era. Fascism was widely discredited after Italy and Germany lost World War II, but persists today in new forms.

Some scholars view fascism in narrow terms, and some even insist that the ideology was limited to Italy under Mussolini. When the term is capitalized as Fascism, it refers to the Italian movement. But other writers define fascism more broadly to include many movements, from Italian Fascism to contemporary neo-Nazi movements in the United States. This article relies on a very broad definition of fascism, and includes most movements that aim for total social renewal based on the national community while also pushing for a rejection of liberal democratic institutions.

 

[sr71plt]

Prescott Bush. Now there's an interesting name to find popping up in this connection.