When Jonah says ‘ironically’, he means something different than the rest of us. As in ‘accurately’.

How did he get this piece of crap printed?

Woo.

Jonah is out to prove that liberals are fascists. Therefore, right-wingers CANNOT be fascists. I don’t understand what’s so hard about this. He started with a conclusion, spent a few minutes over several years trying to find facts to fit it, had a torrent of evidence contradict his preselected conclusions, and so he simply took to lying. The only difference between this and his previous wingnuttery is the hard cover and high cover price.

1) Misuse of “irony.”
2) Misuse of facts.
3) Just…stop him now.

In GoldWhirled, saying your opponent called the KKK fascist makes your opponent look bad.

Over here in Realityville things are a mite different.

Shamelessly moved from the other thread, in an attempt to keep Bradrocket from injuring himself:

Bradrocket, despair not. The definitive takedown of Goldberg’s drivel was written 5 years ago, around the time Jonah was supposed to have his opus finished:

“Make comparisons to Hitler. This is a surprisingly flexible technique because Hitler was a busy guy. He did everything from eating to painting landscapes to attacking the world. So if someone argues that napping is good for you, point out that Hitler liked napping too.”

-Scott Adams, “Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel,” pg. 236. The chapter is called “Weasel Debating Techniques,” and Jonah seems to have mistaken it for a how-to manual.

I think Doughy thinks it’s “ironic” is because it’s really the liberals who are fascists, see?, and then there they are calling someone else fascists, when really they’re the ones who are the fascists.

Okay, hang on here a minute.

The fact that the KKK didn’t like Mussolini proves:

1.) The KKK were not fascists.

2.) Liberals ARE fascists.

Of course, it could just be that the good ol’boys in the sheets didn’t much like Eye Talians, but hey, that’s a real reach. Pantload’s conclusion makes MUCH more sense….

mikey

Jonah makes me sad I wasn’t the son of a bitch, so I could make big money, too.

Will this go down as the stupidest, most intellectually-challenged, Wingut welfare book of comedy genius of all-time?

My God, what a lunatic. He has his fascists very, very confused.

Seldom has so much time and effort been spent for so little. And fuck you, Bush dead-enders, I don’t HAVE to read it. Nor will I, unless I decide to do a S,N! evisceration of it, which is unlikely only because of my goddamn job.

Smarter, funnier people will do my job for me.

I’m a bit ambivalent about Scott Adams, because while Dilbert is (usually) good, and some of his books are too, he seems to be a bit of a techolibertarian asshole.

If I recall, he’s got the whole engineering-creationism mix going on. I think P.Z. Meyers called him out for defending wrongness a while back.

Yes, and let’s not forget that the loudest criticisms of Fascism in the mid-30s in the U.S. and U.K. were Leftists who were not pleased with Hitler’s mass arrest of Communists following the Reichstag fire, or with Franco’s supporters gunning down Spanish Socialists (which began the Civil War), or Mussolini’s abolishment of independent labor unions.

Of course if Goldberg had actually spent a few hours out of the five years or however long this book took to write reading old left-wing newspapers from the time, it would have had the incovenient side effect of putting the lie to his argument.

I fear for what will happen to Bradrocket’s brain if when he manages to finish the book.

Take a breather man. Look, Chris Dodd scored a minor victory in his filibuster today! Be happy! Wait 24 hours before trying to digest another chapter of this book, please!

I can only imagine the gnawing pain you’re getting from this reading of Liberal Fascism. Lord knows I’ve had but a sample of it when I decided to try and decipher T3h Stoopid in George Will and Bill Kristol columns (and they are a couple of supposed smart-guys in the conservative movement).

Great work. Keep it up. I just started reading you because of this subject (Yglesias linked to you). Great stuff man. Jonah’s book is meeting down to my expectations.

Goldberg is a hack.

A wingnut-welfare hack. The man couldn’t get a job at a high school monthly if it weren’t for his connections.

Sort of like George Bush, who would be fighting to get a job running a gas station were it not for his brand name.

And the Dems just give them whatever they want, perpetuating their status as weak limp-wristed pussies. It’s embarrassing, except for one thing: Nobody will hassle me about my third party votes anymore, and I didn’t vote for Nader. I only do it when it doesn’t matter.

We are so fucked.

Also, it occurs to me that the Klan might have hated Mussolini at the time. Seriously, I mean, he’s a Catholic WOP. Bad in the KKK’s book.

“Ernest Hemingway was skeptical of Mussolini almost from the start.”

The start of what ?

Gawd, it sounds like an 8th grader’s social studies paper.

Liberals have done an admittedly and obviously complicit job on eviscerating the Constitution.

But they’re never as stupid as Jonah, by his mere chapter titles is.

I mean, it’s like parody without the comedy, or faux-realism.

Well yeah they hated Mussolini. But that doesn’t make them any less of fascists, just as Trotsky’s dislike for Stalin makes him any less of a communist.

You know, I’m beginning to suspect that Jonah Goldberg is not very smart.

So if the Spanish socialists were the Republican army, and they fought against the fascists (who, as it seems, are liberals), did he throw in a chapter about conservative communism?

And if Saddam had the Iraqi Republican Guard…
Holy shit! Did Jonah do 9/11?

David:

This is just a guess, but I think the Klan probably did hate Mussolini at the time (which proves nothing, of course–do all fascists have to agree with each other?) Back in the day, they hated the Italians, the Irish, probably the Spanish, the Greeks, etc. Over time, they’ve broadened their list of ‘acceptable’ peoples, to the point where Italians and Irish are now considered at least passable. (This is simply a matter of numbers; if you exclude anyone with any trace of Irish or Italian heritage, you’ll have no one left.)

For Jonah, I have only one question: How did the KKK feel about Hitler?

It’s kind of cool, you see.

Mussolini was a fascist. The Ku Klux Klan didn’t like Mussolini, because he was foreign and Italian and the KKK didn’t like immigrants. But the KKK was not really fascist since only liberals called them “fascist” ironically.

So, fascists can’t be people who don’t like Mussolini because they don’t like immigrants.

Jonah’s lil’ KKK dig is historically accurate, in that the KKK was intensely ant-Cathollic and anti-southern European (too close to africa).

Jonah’s lil’ KKK dig is historically accurate, in that the KKK was intensely ant-Cathollic and anti-southern European (too close to africa).

Yeah, but dude. He’s taking historically accurate tidbits and yanking them way the eff out of their context in order to score cheap political points. “OMG, LIBERAL FASCISTS, EVEN TEH KLAN H4T3D MUSSOLINI, YOU CAN’T CALL THEM FASCISTS LOLOLOLOLOL!!!1!”

Wow, this book seems historically bad. Maybe it’s actually clever satire making fun of conservatives and we’re too dumb to get it?

So the KKK can’t be fascists because – they disliked immigrants? The hell?

— I know Brad —

How did he ever get this shit published by a publisher that isn’t Mom-with-a-Xerox-Machine?

I think Mr. Stay-Puff thinks that beginning sentences with “Interestingly” and dropping in “ironically” here and there equals a big, fat, brainy-ass scholarly tome.

Has Jonah ever used the phrase, “islamofascism?”

Conservatives like this expression, the “hard left.” does it actually mean anything or is it one of their dog whistles?

Wait, I think I get it! See, the real “American fascists” are TEH LIBERALS, so, it is, like, ironic, for them to give that title to the KKK, since they don’t also say “I’m rubber, you’re glue”. Or something.

Ironically because “liberals” are so obviously the real fascists around here, I guess. The KKK are merely harmless “nativists”, much like the Navajo with their rain dances and such.

It’s kind of funny that the Georgia dumbass in the bottom picture is saluting with the wrong hand. He’s using his left hand, that mean he’s probably gay.

will the application of Cheetos make Brad’s task easier or harder?

discuss.

This is what happens when you write a book researched by asking NRO readers to do the work for you.

The KKK are merely harmless “nativists”, much like the Navajo with their rain dances and such.

Which explains the Swastikas!!!

/pantload

“Conservatives like this expression, the “hard left.” does it actually mean anything or is it one of their dog whistles?”

I asked myself the same question. Who’s the “soft” left? Hamsher? Dodd? Digby? TBogg?

Where does one draw the line between the hard and soft left? (and we all know that if you’re a Republican male of a certain age, you are really, really drawn to the hard left, for reasons you can’t even discuss with your wife, or preacher … unless that preacher happens to be Haggard).

But really, is ignorance this … this open and admitted yet another sign of our failing schools?

I’d never heard that the KKK had a problem with Mussolini. It makes sense on it’s face, but you had institutions like the American Legion that explicitly identified with the blackshirts and loudly proclaimed their willingness to do the same job if the left got out of hand. I would have imagined the intersection there would have came out on the fascist side vs. the anti-papistry but I’ve been fooled before.

“Ironically because “liberals” are so obviously the real fascists around here, I guess. The KKK are merely harmless “nativists”, much like the Navajo with their rain dances and such.”

Does Jonah mention the WW2 heroics of the Racist Cracker Code Talkers?

(crackling radio) “We-ull golllleee, we got a division of tanks a-comin toward you Skeeter, ya heah?”

(Nazi HQ) “Mein Fuhrer! Ve cannot understand vot ze are sayink!”

Conservatives like this expression, the “hard left.” does it actually mean anything or is it one of their dog whistles?

It meant a great deal in the 1930’s. Assuming he’s using it correctly (which is a bad bet), it means a commitment to international socialism.

I am the soft left. I workout like a good gay lib…fascist, but I still have washcloth abs.

Must be teh desire to oppress brave conservative thought.

It’s amazing to me how few footnotes he puts in most of this crap. I’ve read five pages of the chapter where he calls hippies “the third great fascist movement of the twentieth century” and I’ve seen one goddamn footnote in the whole chapter.

“and I’ve seen one goddamn footnote in the whole chapter.”

Does it point you at something he wrote himself?

“Jonah Goldberg, ironically called ‘douche bag’ by American liberals”

Wait, that’s not irony either.

international socialism to be achieved by revolutionary means independent of incremental politics also.

I guess it would be rude to point out that the Republicans of the day (including, prominently, one Prescott Bush) played pattycake with the fascists in Europe because they thought the fascists in Europe were going in a promising direction in opposing labor unions, hein?

will the application of Cheetos make Brad’s task easier or harder?

Give him one of those disgusting Cheeto and red Mountain Dew shakes. I can’t see how it could make him feel any worse. You see, while he’s reading the book he’ll be basically impervious to any additional pain inflicted upon him, kind of like firing a .22 at a man caught in a thermonuclear blast. A thermonuclear blast of stupid.

Is that highlighter pen in the excerpted passage above, or a palimpsest of Cheeto dust from another NRO manuscript?

If he thinks hippies were fascists, then history is getting really fucked up.

But seriously, it would seem that Jonah’s idea of a fascist is anyone who has more sex than he does.

was that in chapter 4: “Like Liberals, I Heard Some People Didn’t Like Fascists”?

And what did non-liberals call the ‘nativist Ku Klux Klan’ back then? American Heroes? The Wink-wink-nudge-nudge Club? Where Uncle Chet goes to ‘blow off some steam’? The Finally-Something-to-use-my-Rope-For-Other-Than-Auto-Erotic-Asphyxiation Club?

Does Jonah give any insight into the arc of animated fascism, from tweety bird and poody tat to itchy and scratchy? Is there a Soros tie in?

dBa- funny you mention that because one of his evidences that Mussolini was a liberal was that HE LIKED SEX… JUST LIKE LIBERALS DO!!!! I shit you not.

Ha, I knew that non-fucker had ulterior motives.

This is quite possibly the dumbest book since ‘The Late Great Planet Earth’

…the chapter where he calls hippies “the third great fascist movement of the twentieth century”

This seems like another “fascist” movement which would have been vastly preferable to suffer under than one of the actual fascist movements. I mean, it might seem like torture to some people to listen to a long rock album while stoned or on shrooms or dropping acid, but probably less so than, say, partial death drowning (“waterboarding”).

Strange thing is, given the genetic Republican instincts to rush toward fascists in order to admire and support them, the hippies received very little Republican appreciation.

And out of all the fascist movements Reagan enjoyed allowing his Neo-Khan / New Right / Talibangelical nutbags to fund and use to play war, not one of them was led by hippies. I don’t think.

Okay, Reagan’s Afghan terrorist “freedom fighter” gangster warriors grew long hair and beards and dressed in robes and dealt in a lot of opium, but I don’t recall a lot of people getting a “hippie” vibe from Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

and the nationalization of the means of production under the dictatorship of the proletariat as established and run by the Soviet Communist party in strict adherence to the principles of Marxist-Leninism – avoiding the errors of Right Wing Revisionism and struggling against Infantile Leftism.

(I can’t believe I remember that shit)

Poll time: how many people who buy this trite POS are going to read it and how many of those have read Hemingway?

My guess: 3

So Jonah could have wrote, “Hemingway danced around the Vatican in a pink tutu when Mussolini ceased power” — with none to say him nay.

tb said,

“Give him one of those disgusting Cheeto and red Mountain Dew shakes”

They work better as an enema. You shouldn’t put those things in your mouth.

Good Christ, can this get any more asinine? What the hell page are you on?

I’ve read five pages of the chapter where he calls hippies “the third great fascist movement of the twentieth century” and I’ve seen one goddamn footnote in the whole chapter.

he hasn’t found a way to cite the puffy clouds that drift aimlessly in the vacant sky of his head.

This is quite possibly the dumbest book since ‘The Late Great Planet Earth’

Or the novelization of ‘Manimal’.

tb- i’m on page 174. But I’ve been skipping around a lot. Can you blame me?

“ceased”?

How about “seized”

(I blame Clinton)

Back in the day, they hated the Italians, the Irish, probably the Spanish, the Greeks, etc.

Don’t forget the Papists! The Klan went totally apeshit when Al Smith ran for president in 1928.

(crackling radio) “We-ull golllleee, we got a division of tanks a-comin toward you Skeeter, ya heah?”

In the 1920s, when the Klan was at the peak of its membership, the state with the most members—by far—was Indiana.

Does Pantload mention the German-American Bund?

Arguably, the zenith of the Bund’s history occurred on President’s Day, February 19, 1939 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Some 20,000 people attended and heard Kuhn criticize President Franklin Delano Roosevelt by repeatedly referring to the president as “Frank D. Rosenfeld”, calling his New Deal the “Jew Deal”, and espousing his belief in the existence of a Bolshevik-Jewish conspiracy in America.

Dirty fucking hippies.

“Chariots of the Loaf”

?

I am as excited to read Jonah’s book as I was when I discovered a Caroline & the City slash fiction site.

The KKK didn’t like Mussolini because, amongst their other charms, they were virulently anti-papist. Where’s the Vatican? That’s right, Rome! Right down the street from Mussolini’s pad! Mussolini was fascist, which was ok, but he was also Catholic, which was kind of a deal-breaker.

Thomas Laqueur’s recent lecture on the rise of fascism is worth a listen, because he actually discusses its radical break with the laissez-faire conceptions of left and right that led Europe into the slaughter of the Great War. And he’s careful to note the promotion of eugenics on the left, which, I’m sure, becomes ‘libruls here, entitled ‘The Failure of Politics Between The Wars’.)

But he’s a Berkeley history professor, so he’s obviously a fascist.

I never thought of the KKK as being fascist — just ugly, stupid ignint racists so lacking in basic book larnin’ to even think in the terms necessary to put together an economic/political architecture.

Ernest Hemingway shot himself because he feared he would someday be cited in this book.

I am so jealous I don’t have a copy (but there is no way I’ll ever pay for one). It sounds like pure comedy gold.

I can’t wait until you get to Liberal Racism chapter. That should be fun.

All those damn hippies calling for an end to segregation! How racist of them. Truly, it is those that want to purge America of all the hispanics that are truly the ones fighting racism in the country. This is why so many minorities fill the ranks of the GOP.

damn angle brackets. let’s try that again.

Thomas Laqueur’s recent lecture on the rise of fascism is worth a listen, because he actually discusses its radical break with the laissez-faire conceptions of left and right that led Europe into the slaughter of the Great War. And he’s careful to note the promotion of eugenics on the left, which, I’m sure, becomes ‘libruls <3 genocide!’ in Opus Magnum Pantloadus.

(The lecture’s linked here, entitled ‘The Failure of Politics Between The Wars’.)

But he’s a Berkeley history professor, so he’s obviously a fascist.

I didn’t realize that attending public school, voting for the green party candidate, eating organic fruits and vegetables, rejecting factory farm meat and eggs, rescuing abused animals and petting my neighbours’ dogs and cats would turn me into a Nazi. Sadly, it’s too late for me to change my sordid ways and become Jonah’s ideal person: a bloated momma’s boy who writes idiotic books while eating cheesies.

Hmm, reactionary xenophobic Christian hyper-nationalists. Nothing similar at all. Jesus H. Chundermuffin.

So Jonah could have wrote, “Hemingway danced around the Vatican in a pink tutu when Mussolini ceased power” — with none to say him nay.

That’s something that hadn’t occured to me. Why did he pick Hemingway? He didn’t pick that out of a hat, I’m not buying the thing but does Jonah consider Franco a fascist?

Are you up to the chapter on FDR’s fascist new deal? I always thought it was wrong of FDR to create new jobs when the free market had obviously decided that it was in the country’s best interest to have so many people unemployed.

Obviously, those people CHOSE not to work and that evil dictator FDR was practically forcing them at gunpoint to work for the state.

n/m he didn’t slander Hemingway.

Re: hippies[being] “the third great fascist movement of the twentieth century”

H’mmmm.

I wasn’t aware, but I’m not a scholar of Jonah Goldberg’s caliber, that the first two fascist movements of the 20th century had a tendency to ingest LSD, say, “Wow, man,” and fall over. A lot.

And what is it about Wing-Nuts and the Hippie Movement? It lasted – what? 2 years? 3 at the most. Yet, according to op.cite. & et.al. they Ruled the World With a Grip of Steel™.

ldfksjliblkjnfmvfli

Robert Paxton’s The Anatomy of Fascism [Bradrocket, please read it. It’ll make the pain stop], in the Conclusion chapter, discusses how the KKK were the first fascists, or proto-fascists, because they predate the Fascist and Nazi Parties.

Why won’t Daddy Soros send me money?

I’ve been skipping around a lot.

I imagine it’s like being in one of those treasure-caves; hard to work through methodically because each jewel is more dazzling than the last. Only it’s not jewels- it’s pure, crystalline, croquet mallet to the forehead stupidity.

I think it’s interesting that the he talks about the ‘war on cheezeburgers’ being born of a faux-liberal fascism, and yet completely ignores the ‘war on drugs’ instituted by Nixon as an assault on the Hippy-fascism movement.

Or I just think it’s interesting that someone that intellectually baffling is making a living at it.

Or I’m just jealous.

I’m not sure which.

Since believing in animal rights means one is a fascist, I think this means that Mike Huckabee’s son, who stoned and skinned a stray dog, must be the greatest fascist fighter alive today.

Forget that last post o’ mine, I just remembered who his target audience was, forgot it wasn’t us.

It’s amazing to me how few footnotes he puts in most of this crap. I’ve read five pages of the chapter where he calls hippies “the third great fascist movement of the twentieth century” and I’ve seen one goddamn footnote in the whole chapter.

Why St. Rev. Bradley, don’t you remember when the proletariat Ohio Guardsmen were viciously oppressed by the Dirty Fucking Fascist Hippies at Kent State?

Speaking of the Huckabees, did you see this horrifying picture of them at C&L?

Saw that picture, there’s a LOT of patriotic fabric going on there.

Not that anyone cares, but I won’t again be seen in the same conference room or ballroom with Mr. Goldberg. As my grandfather said in 1950s Alabama, refering to racists:: “you just don’t drink with folks like that.” God bless his soul for refusing to deal with fascists in Alabama 50 years ago; I’ll keep it up here in NYC in 2007.

Goldberg knows what scum he is.

I won’t be at the same receptions or parties. (Not to assume that many organizers really care what I think.)

Ed Marshall — he slanders Hemingway by mentioning him in that context, not mention that book.

Perhaps Jonah has gone all Post-Modern hoping, since books talk to books, if he mentions Hemingway some Hemingway scholar will mention him?

You get to the acknowledgments yet, bradrocket?

hippies are “the third great fascist movement of the twentieth century” because well-known hippie musician Woddie Guthrie ironically had as his slogan “This Machine Kills Fascists”. Irony. Get it?

Crooked TImber is looking this thing over as well: as I commented there, any bets on when the count of factual errors outnumbers the pages?

dBa- funny you mention that because one of his evidences that Mussolini was a liberal was that HE LIKED SEX… JUST LIKE LIBERALS DO!!!! I shit you not.

please tell me that you are joking!

proof, if proof were needed that Pantload is in serious need of a blowjob.

And what is it about Wing-Nuts and the Hippie Movement? It lasted – what? 2 years? 3 at the most. Yet, according to op.cite. & et.al. they Ruled the World With a Grip of Steel™.

I think it mostly boils down to a convenient rationalization of their sexual undesirability. As in, if only those chicks realized what pussies those dirty fucking hippies are, they’d be all over me.

Future wingnut revisionists will likely blame the woes of our day on Jim from The Office.

What, no mention of me ??????

Robert Byrd is a fat old fascist.

We don’t believe Jonah Goldberg ever actually existed.

The funny thing about “The Culture War” is that it’s entirely one-sided. You have conservatives brandishing tin-foil shields and cardboard tubes, sharing stories about the sweat and tears they poured into this ongoing epic battle, while their “enemy” sits on it’s collective ass watching TV.

It’s like having a stalker, but at the societal level. Truly delusional. And somehow, even though they were the only people actually fighting the war at all they still managed to lose. That takes some doing.

he calls hippies “the third great fascist movement of the twentieth century”

Who can forget how the hippies put on those crisp uniforms, and marched in orderly columns through Woodstock, New York, and on to the state legislature where they beat the representatives senseless and took control?

Who can forget those hippy mantras, “all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State,” “power to the volk,” and “there is neither the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.”

And remember when they all loaded up their Volkswagen buses, and drove the cowardly French occupiers out of the Rheinland to show the strength of their will?

Or how San Francisco became the center of the Wagner revival that pushed that “rock music” out of the pop charts forever, and ’67 was the Summer of Hate, and the Death Camps that exterminated all the homosexuals in that former Sodom?

I can hardly imagine forgetting all this that has come to pass.

Dammit, Ifthethunder… did me one better while I was a-typin’…

Goldberg is a hack. A wingnut-welfare hack. The man couldn’t get a job at a high school monthly if it weren’t for his connections.

Heck, John, he’s proud of his beneficiary status in the Nepotism Derby that is today’s Wingnuttia! The miserable pantload brags that he got his start in the professional media by “dribbling out” (his words) details from the tapes his repulsive mother Lucianne persuaded Linda Tripp to make, probably not legally, of Monica’s conversations during the Great Republican Panty-Sniffing Festival & Impeachment Carnival. As with his Dear Leader Dubya, “Doughbob Loadpants” has moved into third-level, perfected Nepotism. Lesser sucklings than Jonah might pretend that such nepotism didn’t exist; second-stage parasites may insist that they’re doing an objectively excellent job despite whatever small advantages may have accrued to them by virtue of genetics. But the modern full-force, shameless, Ultimate Boils on the Butt of American ‘Meritocracy’ are happy to wave their total lack of ability, ambition, or energy in the faces of “luzers” like you and I who foolishly believe that brains, talent, or hard work might be valuable attributes. When future anthropologists dig out the long-buried remnants of our civilisation, Jonah’s “writings” will be used as the… lead standard of the lust for the lazy, the banal, the easy, and the prurient that made the Reign of Commander Codpiece a byword and a mockery of all that is decent.

And that’s why, when Jonah uses the word “ironic”, he means “I am about to say something lazy, stupid, and probably wrong, but I could not care less, since I’m getting paid irregardless.”. He has a vague idea (if only because so many people have shouted at him) that the word might have another meaning for those less nepotistically Gifted than the Mighty Pantload, but he’s too lazy to find out for sure, if only because using this one-word shorthand saves him so much typing.

pedestrian — that suggests an interesting experiment in Applied Political Sexual Psychology. (A new scientific discipline little known ‘cuz I just made it up.)

From the ranks of Wingnuttia compile a statistically valid population. Within this population random samples will be taken, taken to bed, and humped till the cows come home. A random sample of their writing before, after, and during being HTTCCH will be most instructive.

Why should wingnuts get all the HTTCCH action?
C’mon, Xmas elves need lovin, too.

Random–brilliant! I must admit, sometimes I do wonder what people are going on about, before I realize that I’m just WAY too young to get the references. These idiots are trying to appeal to a young generation of prospective wingnuts, this is the primary problem here. They’re going for people younger than me, down to college kids. I think the right is on the definite downswing though.

Now about that flag. Dammit, I am a born Georgian. I was born under that flag and I’ll die under it, no matter where I live, and I have a hankering to kick that young idiot’s ass right now for being so damned stupid. People made such a muck over changing the state flag, and then they just made it ugly. Hell, my family on two sides has been attacked by the Klan, and now that’s all who’re left with my damned state flag, a bunch of stupid rednecks. Which is kind of what I expected in the first damned place, but still.

Now I’m condemned never to live in my home state again. Funny thing, everyone notices how North Georgia doesn’t get winter like it used to, yet global warming isn’t actually happening, eh? Shit, first I heard about global warming was as a kid with old relatives on the Southern side talking about the changes, and they SURE are not a bunch of tree-huggers like myself.

“he hasn’t found a way to cite the puffy clouds that drift aimlessly in the vacant sky of his head.”

In his mind, colorless pink Cheetos drift motionlessly.

dogrose wrote: “In the 1920s, when the Klan was at the peak of its membership, the state with the most members—by far—was Indiana.”

Eh, there’s a linguistic uber goober language that transcends mere geography.

’d never heard that the KKK had a problem with Mussolini.

I think maybe the KKK didn’t like Italians. Because they were Catholic AND they’re swarthy-ish. And spoke that funny language.

Proof that there is no god.

The pantload pinches out this load of shite, with a lifetime ahead of him to surpass it in loathesome factlessness, but Terry Pratchett gets Alzheimers’ at 59.

From the ranks of Wingnuttia compile a statistically valid population. Within this population random samples will be taken, taken to bed, and humped till the cows come home.
We return to the tendentious concept of the Hard Left.

Something’s come up at the office. We’re going to be late home tonight. Don’t wait up.

“I’d never heard that the KKK had a problem with Mussolini.”

Hell, I kinda get the vague impression that Hitler didn’t have much use for him either, apart from providing cannon fodder.

I bet Hitler and his generals scoffed behind Benito’s back, “Yeah, the great conqueror of Ethiopia. WOW! That took some doing, I bet! I’m glad he’s on OUR side! At least we don’t have to worry about the Ethiopians teaming up with the Allies!”

Jonah is the new Emmanuel Goldstein, but with more yuks per Lil Debbie bar.

There’s truly nothing more pathetic than whining about hippies. At best there are a few thousand of them left, and they spend their days smoking weed and listening to noodley four hour long Phish jams while they stare at a wall, if they’re lucky. Somehow this triggers fight-or-flight reactions in a certain variety of over privileged right-wing asshole.

Yet even the most deranged of these haters never thought to consider the hippies fascists. Jonah is truly a visionary.

Jonah was filmed typing this book.

So let me see if I get this straight:

Environmental conservation = fascist
Fiscal conservation = true American conservative values [even though we know that in Bush World there is no such thing as fiscal conservatism]

Wants to control behavior like smoking, resource consumption, committing racial or gender hate crimes = fascist
Wants to control behavior like having sex, getting abortions, being gay = true American conservative values

Wants to protect rights of free speech, free assembly, civil rights = fascist
Wants to protect property rights, Second Amendment rights, rights of corporations = true American conservative values

Speech and behavior codes to avoid offending minority groups = fascist
Speech and behavior codes to avoid offending Our Troops, The Preznit, Jeeeeeebus and Tammy Wynette = true American conservative values

Publicly funded Education = fascist
Private Education funded with public money = true American conservative values

Employees ability to collectively bargain to achieve binding contracts = fascist
Corporations ability to bargain to achieve binding contracts = true American conservative values

Feminism and womens’ rights in America = fascist
Womens’ rights in Muslim countries = true American conservative values.

Committed monogamous GAY relationships blessed by clergy = fascist
Committed monogamous relationships blessed by clergy = true American conservative values

Have I got it about right?

Footnote!? He has a footnote in the book? Bwahh-ha-hah-haa, there goes half his sales! Next thing you know, there’ll be an equation, and the sales will go negative. Everybody knows that’s what happens when you put University-type snob signifiers in a book.

Seriously, the guy is a real intellectual by the relevant standards. Remember that book a couple of years about the 100 worst people in America? Or most dangerous or whatever. Well, one day I was waiting at the counter in a bookstore and saw a copy there. This was in London, oddly enough. So I picked it up and opened it, for the entertainment of seeing why Jimmy Carter was so evil. Smiling to myself, I flipped to the back to look in the index.

No, nobody expects the wingnut index, and I wasn’t disappointed. So I flipped to the front, to skim through the 100 entries in the Table of Contents for Carter. YES! I mean NO!!! A book without a fucking table of contents.

That is the true intellectual level of wingnut world. How poor 98-pound weakling smart intellectual guy Jonah expects to survive in that world, I just don’t know.

“Speaking of the Huckabees, did you see this horrifying picture of them at C&L?”

Those boys look well-fed. Must’ve been those fine, fine deep-fried pies at the late Linsey’s Barbecue in North Little Rock.

Hitler actually didn’t like to refer to Nazism as “fascism,” since it suggested that his glorious Volksstaat was somehow derivative of the Italians.

Guess that means Hitler wasn’t a fascist.

Those white guys just don’t get the whole high-five dynamic. Here’s a tip, you can’t all be facing the same way.

@El Cid:

Partial death drowning?

I am speechless. I grovel at your feet. I would want to bear your child if not for some trivial anatomical difficulties.

Fascism certainly had its critics in the 1920s and 1930s.

I did not know this.

Was it Fats Waller ?

“Was it Fats Waller ?”

No, Bix Beiderbecke.

Could this book have been shorter if it listed everyone who is not a fascist ?

I just hope all this extra attention doesn’t boost sales.

“Those white guys just don’t get the whole high-five dynamic. Here’s a tip, you can’t all be facing the same way.”

LOLKlan:

INVISIBLE HIGH-FIVES

I just hope all this extra attention doesn’t boost sales.

Who the hell on this thread is going to buy it ?

“Ironically”

This word… I do not think it means what you think it means.

I may buy this book in a bargain bin somewhere – I have a shelf labeled “Unintentional Humour”. Yes, Hal Lindsay has a place of honour there.

You guys all laugh. We’re gonna be cleaning this crud off Wikipedia for months.

Hi folks, Chad Hitler here again..

What ??

Aww, Jesus, c’mon !!!!

Of course our Right still hates them hippies. They got laid, got by without working AND without having rich forbears’ to subsidize their slacking, and — worse yet — they questioned WHY. Why fight a war against people who did not attack us, could not attack us, and would not have attacked us? Why compete for more goodies in a system which rewards hucksterism, greed, and nihilistic consumerism, creates pollution, and gives all of the easy jobs to the sons of the idle rich? Why bother? This drives parasites like Doughpants crazy, because at some single-celled level, he understands that he would starve in the gutter without other people working.

Thursday said,
This word… I do not think it means what you think it means.

Indeed. Every time I read any of the paragraphs kindly provided by Brad, I find myself talking in an Inigo Montoya voice.
Look at the title of Chapter 7. “Liberal Racism: The Eugenic Ghost in the Fascist Machine.” You do not need to have read Gilbert Ryle’s book where he introduces the phrase ‘ghost in the machine’, to know that it does not mean the same as ‘skeleton in the closet’.

I console myself with the thought that all these errors will be corrected in the 2nd Edition.

Another exhausting day in wingnutland. I wonder what tomorrow will bring?

I wonder what tomorrow will bring?

Chris Muir will illustrate “Liberal Fascism”?

I’m surprised that Saul hasn’t come in here defending the KKK.

Wait, the KKK cant be fascist because they hated foreigners? mmmkay.

[…] Nejnej. Ikke noget galt med at kalde Ku Klux Klan for “naitivist”. Nejnej. […]

Holy shit. The next time my mom encourages me to write a book, I’m sending her a copy of this pile of crap. “This is what happens when they publish stuff just because a mother thinks her kid can write. Clear now? Good.”

Jonah at two: “Mommy, I made a poopy on the potty!”

Jonah at seven: “Mommy, I roted my naem!”

Jonah at eleven: “Mommy, I rided my big boy bike today!”

Jonah at sixteen: “Mommy, I rided my big boy bike with no training wheels!”

Jonah at twenty-two: “Mommy, I gradumated from college!”

Jonah at twenty-five: “Mommy, I had the sex! With a girl!”

Jonah at thirty-five: “Mommy, I maded a baby, just like you!”

Jonah at thirty-six: “Mommy, I called liberals poopyheads, just like you!”

Trees–good point.

Thursday–I’ve got one of those as well. Got a New World Order by Pat Robertson for 60 cents. I do have a few Coulters, which I keep shelved with the Lovecraft. Actually, one of my favorite musicians was asked for recommendations for books and he caught shit for recommending Coulter’s Slander. I love his defense for that decision, here.
(almost all the way down this page, actually now)

The fact is, the style of a liberal often includes these characteristics:

1. calling conservative humor “unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia.” [16]
2. overreliance on hearsay, such as the false claim that most support evolution
3. unjustified praise of atheists and other liberals as “geniuses”, despite little achievement
4. calling the use of the term liberal when used in a derogatory context “stupid”[17]
5. denial that people can grow out of a liberal viewpoint, such as atheism
6. denial of accountability
7. insisting on a mindless equality, as in “if you have an entry for Beethoven, then you must allow entries for vulgar rap artists!”
8. concealing one’s liberal views rather than admitting them
9. calling conservative free speech “hate” speech [18]
10. pretending to know more than he does; Isaac Newton admitted that he knew almost nothing, yet a liberal rarely admits that and often pretends to know more than he does
11. resistance to quantifying things, such as liberal bias or openmindedness
12. preference for obscenity and profanity [19]
13. insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate
14. over-reliance on mockery [20] [21] [22] [23]
15. over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy
16. hostility to faith
17. insistence on censoring certain speech, such as a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans[Citation Needed]
18. believing that the education of children is for liberals to control
19. believing that conservatives will fail, and refusing to accept when they succeed, as when George W. Bush won in 2000
20. reluctance to admit that anything is morally wrong
21. bullying conservatives who disagree with liberal views
22. draw an analogy between opponents and racists, no matter how illogical
23. claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their position to be false
24. often declare that an adversary should be “ashamed of himself,” while never saying that about a fellow liberal (such as Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton)[24] [25]
25. willing to give away everything held dear by the majority to avoid serious conflict (such as the appeasement of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, or those liberals who wish to pull our troops out of Iraq, and embolden the terrorists).
26. using hyperbole instead of fact-based logic in an attempt to tug at people’s emotions rather than appealing to their sense of reason.[26]
27. often long-winded and verbose, and in debates liberals often consume more than their fair share of the alloted time, leaving less time for the other side.
28. attempting to control the rules of evidence used in a debate. For example, claiming that Young Earth Creationism is false, and then refusing to allow supporting evidence by claiming that the scientists are religiously motivated.
29. attempting to control the definitions of words through political correctness. For example, referring to Israel as “occupied territories” or suggesting that Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are not part of Al-Qaeda.
30. Dismissing legitimate criticism as “a joke” [27]
31. Denying something widely known to be true but difficult to prove, such as observing that men are far more likely to work in gas stations than women.[Citation Needed]
32. Will often deny being a liberal, or will claim to be a “true conservative”, while spouting liberal and democratic talking points and criticizing basic conservative beliefs and principles.
33. using non sequiturs in argument, such as responding to the point above that liberals over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy by citing an example of conservatives’ observing liberal hypocrisy. But their example does not help their argument. Quite the contrary, use of that example tends to prove that liberals do over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy (relativism). Think about that.
34. selectively citing the Bible when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain.
35. believing that bureaucratic honors or appointments are meaningful achievements.
36. silly demands for apologies.[28]
37. can’t understand the difference between identity (e.g., color of one’s skin), perspective (e.g., Judeo-Christian) and bias (e.g., Bias in Wikipedia).
38. inability or unwillingness to differentiate between genuine conservative arguments and parodies of conservative arguments.
39. “Contrariness is creativity to the untalented” – Dennis Miller’s general observation about liberal behavior.[Citation Needed]
40. Assuming criminals are on the other side of the political fence, without evidence.

Anyone heard from brad yet this morning? I’m hoping he’s still with us. I had a bad dream last night that he sat up reading for a long time and finally ran off screaming into the night, never to be heard from again.

Meanwhile, conservatives just go for plagiarism.

As soon as I saw the post title, I knew this was Pantload’s Super Booky Wook again. What’s this idiotic lump of shit quote from, page four?

41. Accusing Gary of cutting and pasting from conservapedia.

P.S. Help for trolls.

Gary–nice list of your own attributes with the word “liberal” sprinkled throughout. Good to get to know you better.

28. attempting to control the rules of evidence used in a debate. For example, claiming that Young Earth Creationism is false, and then refusing to allow supporting evidence by claiming that the scientists are religiously motivated.

The fact is, trying to make people not listen to what seems true to me by talking and giving facts and other things some people don’t like is fascism.

Crib from Conservapedia much?

Does that sound like anyone you know?

It would be funny as all fuck if Goldburp attracted a faithful following of Klan groupies.

And in the black & white photo, the guy in the glasses … is that Chevy Chase?

Jonah should have written an autobiography instead. Working title: “They Call Me Pantload”.

No, it’s Eddie Deezen’s father.

I console myself with the thought that all these errors will be corrected in the 2nd Edition.

I have nothing to add to this. It just bears repeating.

It would be funny as all fuck if Goldburp attracted a faithful following of Klan groupies.

I intend to refer to him as “KKK-advocate Jonah Goldberg” from now on.

Could Jonah have been named after J. Jonah Jameson who ALWAYS found some reason to hate Spiderman despite his obvious goodgyuyhood? Trumping up bs evidence to PROVE that Spidey was EEEEEEEEEEVIL seems like the journalimismistic role model activity Doughbob might be using.

Please tell me the entire book isn’t as stupid as that. Please reassure me that, in America today, being so astonishingly stupid for 400 pages will prevent someone from being published.

The mind boggles. What can one even say about such a festering pile of idiocy?

Ok, the entire book isn’t as stupid as that. Oh, wait, yes it is.

Fer crissake, the Nazies were “nativists”. I’m sure if the Klan had their way, Jonah would be ironically liquidated.

As someone involved in publishing and writing, I can tell you: Jonah wasn’t published *despite* his stupidity, but *because* of it. I’ll bet you any amount of money that Jonah’s publishers are “thrilled” by the “reaction” the book is “getting.”

[…] it his attempt to argue that the KKK was not fascist because they hated immigrants, and therefore liberals are fascists for calling the KKK fascists (an argument which one can only hope Dave Neiwert doesn’t come across without warning, lest […]

Dumbfuck writes, “…[The KKK] tended to despise Mussolini and his American followers (mainly because they were immigrants)…”

Hmm. If it turned out that contemporary conservatives, and not liberals, were the ones who hated immigrants, would there be a word for that?

He said “tended”, though, didn’t he? That would suggest that the KKK tended to despise Fascism then, but doesn’t so much now. Which may be right, for all I know.

In any case, it should be obvious to all that
1. Fascism (as in the specific political programme, not just the pejorative) is a statist tendency that originated with the modern socialist “movements of a new type” (to ues Lenin’s phrase) in the 20th Centuary.

2. These movements were (and are) the antithesis of liberalism.
3. Liberalism has nothing to do with the Democratic Party. Liberalism is the politics of Smith and Hulme, of the European Enlightenment, of private proerty and the impartial rule of law, of trade and commerce, and of the individual not the state.

Goldberg is (from my perspective) trying to get up the noses of his American political enemies, and it’s working. However, there are some important points to be made in this debate. Fascism and Nazism are a part of the left spectrum. Leftists should stop trying to pretend that simply because these movements were racist, they were “extreme right”. Yes, they were racists, but so were most (if not all) Communists. In policy terms, Fascist were simply less extreme socialists (which partially accounts for Mussolini’s popularity), and as such share a lot in common with most modern western post-war governments – Blairite Britain or Scandanavian social democracy, for example. On this basis, if nothing else (I haven’t read the book and I doubt anyone else here has), the Dems should be closer in principle to Fascist policies than the republicans, because of the GOP’s ties to libertarianism (i.e. classical liberalism), nominal conservatism (i.e. defense of enlightnement values on which America was founded) and business (i.e. pro capitalist engine of growth).

Whether or not this is in fact the case (see for example George Bush) is another matter.

“one of his evidences that Mussolini was a liberal was that HE LIKED SEX… JUST LIKE LIBERALS DO!!!! I shit you not.”

Oh, to be Jonah’s girlfriend….must bleach my imagination now, hold on.

I thought everyone just went to conservapedia for the gay sex? (check out the page view statistics some time….fascinating…) I didn’t know they also went to cut and paste an ARGUMENT (I mean, who cuts and pastes an argument? Gary, I guess) without even including the citations, which are no doubt fascinating in their own right. I mean, what more definitive authority could there be than Dennis Miller?

The line about “selectively citing the Bible when convenient” is just too precious. Oh, shoot, I’m over-relying on mockery again…

“Liberalism has nothing to do with the Democratic Party.”

Ok, just read that and it’s an over-exaggeration (regression to the mean!). But I’m sure you all know what I trying to say: What’s called liberalism in America isn’t what was developed as liberalism as a philosophy in Enlightenment Europe.

vimothy, you understand this subject as poorly as Goldberg.

I’m really going to get sick if this book makes it into Amazon’s top 1,000.

Not meaning to blog-whore, but I was just over at the Bag News Notes site, and they’ve posted the White House holiday “program” – its more than a card – and found it truly creepy. The holiday message that the Bush family is sending us seems to be that the White House is a haunted house, inhabited by lonely animals and presided over by a wicked witch.

Here’s the Bag

Here’s the White House holiday program.

For reference, Here’s the real Barbara Bush portrait that hangs in the White House.

Vimothy meet Gary. Gary, Vimothy. Y’all will get along great. Just do it somewhere else.

Vimothy, trying to turn this book into something with a legitimate historical or intellectual argument in it somewhere is, well, let me just quote Butthead: you can’t polish a turd, Beavis.

“vimothy, you understand this subject as poorly as Goldberg.”

Right – and with critics like you who needs good reviews? Have a word mate, there’s no unwritten law that states that conservatives will always be wrong and progressives will always be right. I’m no fan of Goldberg, but it sure looks as though he’s at least prepared to put his money where his mouth is and outline an argument (even if it is a half-truth at best).

I’m not saying “liberals = fascists”, but that policies adopted by Fascist powers are not uncommon in the modern world, and that attitudes towards the state and the collective population, which originated in the European radical milieu are now the generic positions of US “liberals” and Euro social democrats and leftists.

Nothing wrong with that, necessarily, and nothing to suggest that the governments or political parties in question (which of course involves the Reps as much as the Dems – minimal government my ass) need enact the more reprehensible policies of Fascist Europe.

Jen, you CAN however chrome plate a turd, which you can THEN polish. It remains, in any case , a turd.

hey vim, fuck off

mate

“Vimothy meet Gary. Gary, Vimothy. Y’all will get along great. Just do it somewhere else.”

“hey vim, fuck off”

Sorry – guess I bought the bulls**t about so-called liberals actually being liberal, but in reality you’re as closed minded as any other conservative, keep-me-in-my-comfort-zone and pass-the-ammunition, stereotypically unintersted yank.

Have fun non-debating your own fantasy version of history (the parallels with Jonah’s are indeed pretty stark) and self-righteously hurling insults at anyone who disagrees.

Wanker

I’m no fan of [KKK supporter] Goldberg, but it sure looks as though he’s at least prepared to put his money where his mouth is and outline an argument (even if it is a half-truth at best).

Ah, the soft bigotry of no expectations. According to vimothy, if I decide to write a book in which I claim that all heterosexual males are in fact evil duck billed platypusses bent on world domination, and only gay males stand between the innocent people of the world and a spur full of brain-melting toxins, I should get some credit for taking a big advance on my opus and shitting out over 400 pages of gibberish.

Jesus, please tell me you have nothing to do with educating children.

Have fun non-debating your own fantasy version of history (the parallels with Jonah’s are indeed pretty stark) and self-righteously hurling insults at anyone who disagrees.

Shorter vim: Waah, reality has a liberal bias!

Sorry – guess I bought the bulls**t about so-called liberals actually being liberal, but in reality you’re as closed minded as any other conservative, keep-me-in-my-comfort-zone and pass-the-ammunition, stereotypically unintersted yank.

God, I wish I had a quarter for every version of this sentiment that concern-trolls have posted here over the years! I’d be a wealthy woman.

“Ah, the soft bigotry of no expectations. According to vimothy, if I decide to write a book in which I claim that all heterosexual males are in fact evil duck billed platypusses bent on world domination, and only gay males stand between the innocent people of the world and a spur full of brain-melting toxins, I should get some credit for taking a big advance on my opus and shitting out over 400 pages of gibberish.”

Ah, the boring inevitability of straw-men. Viva la revolution!

“Shorter vim: Waah, reality has a liberal bias!”

That being the case, why does my pointing out the aspects of Goldberg’s thought that have merit or at the very least some historical validity draw immediate abuse and misrepresentation?

Shorter arky: Waah, we’re reality proof!

vimothy really likes pie.

vimothy is reminded of LGF — numerous uninformed comments and p,entiful abuse for anyone questioning the conventional wisdom.

You’re not debating in good faith, you’re making bullshit assertions with no support and redefining words to suit your whims. Why should anyone even pretend to take you seriously?

Yes, vim, you are a fucking idiot troll. Noting that you are a fucking idiot troll does not make me the same as a conservative. You are not pointing out any historic merit. You are a fucking idiot. Just like Jonah. Have a nice life.

“Fascism and Nazism are a part of the left spectrum.”

You can’t rewrite history and definitions, it doesn’t work, except on stupid people.

The photos that you’ve posted not only make the book look full of drivel disguised as argument (oooh, Dachau made organic honey! Quick, everyone repudiate the fascist tool Whole Foods!) but they also make it obvious that the books’ margins are about four inches on the left and right. No wonder Jonah managed to fill 400 pages.

I’m thinking that perhaps Jonah just called the KKK a bunch of hippies; I’m also thinking the KKK might not take kindly to that sort of talk.

This looks like the base level of debate:

“Jonah’s lil’ KKK dig is historically accurate, in that the KKK was intensely ant-Cathollic and anti-southern European (too close to africa).”

“Yeah, but dude. He’s taking historically accurate tidbits and yanking them way the eff out of their context in order to score cheap political points. “OMG, LIBERAL FASCISTS, EVEN TEH KLAN H4T3D MUSSOLINI, YOU CAN’T CALL THEM FASCISTS LOLOLOLOLOL!!!1!””

As in, ok there maybe some points worth discussing, but we’d much rather emote and insult conservative thickies, yooo!!!!

“You’re making bullshit assertions with no support and redefining words to suit your whims”.

Did you even read what I wrote? Regardless of what Goldberg says in his book, Fascism developed out of the socialist milieu in Europe, just like Nazism and other collectivist, anti-enlightenment movements (taking the Russian revolution as their model). These totalitarian movements are anti-liberal by their very nature.Therefore in so far as any political party is involved in liberal democracy (i.e. is liberal in an institutional sense), they are not Fascist, if by Fascist we mean the broad swathe of 20th radical movements.

However, Fascism as a specific instance of these movements was a forerunner for many of the types of government that we have today. That includes (what you in the US call) conservative governments just as much as it includes (what you in the US call) liberal governments.

attitudes towards the state and the collective population, which originated in the European radical milieu are now the generic positions of US “liberals” and Euro social democrats and leftists.

I guess, but only because that “radical milieu” includes the Enlightenment and the French Revolution (which Jonah defines as the original fascist movement). So if anyone other than a divine-right monarch is a fascist, yes, we are all fascists. It kind of loses it’s moral punch then, doesn’t it?

“You can’t rewrite history and definitions, it doesn’t work, except on stupid people.”

But you can try. And my word are these people trying. Question is, why? Isn’t “trying to re-define words” supposed to be, like, a bad thing?

Orwell must be turning in his grave, unless he secretly intended Nineteen Eighty-Four to be an instruction manual rather than a warning.

Maybe Goldberg’s homeschooling is catching up to him and Lucianne merely missed this lesson (“what’s the definition of ‘irony’?”) because she had to smoke or something?

vim, you’re still a fucking idiot. Just like Jonah.

What’s called liberalism in America isn’t what was developed as liberalism as a philosophy in Enlightenment Europe.

Neither is what is called conservatism in America much like the conservatism of Edmund Burke, or what is called physics very similar to that of Newton. Is the complaint that people continued to think after the 18th century? I don’t get it.

“Fascism developed out of the socialist milieu in Europe”

Wow, Just use your real name Jonah.

“I guess, but only because that “radical milieu” includes the Enlightenment and the French Revolution (which Jonah defines as the original fascist movement).”

By “radical milieu” I am thinking of the post-enlightenment era: the rise of socialism (e.g. the Labour Party in Britain replacing the Whigs as the chief oppositino to the Tories — in fact this is almost a metaphor for the wider political changes in Europe), militarism, communism, fascism, protectionism, ect, etc, and the fall of the liberal order. The first half of the 20th C, basically.

“So if anyone other than a divine-right monarch is a fascist, yes, we are all fascists. It kind of loses it’s moral punch then, doesn’t it?”

Come on, you can do better than that. Surely you can grasp and reproduce fairly the point Goldberg is trying to make, even if you disagree with it.

vim- please. Not all statism is fascism. To suggest otherwise is the height of idiocy. Fascism, generally speaking, is a hyper-nationalistic authoritarian movement that thrives on nativist impulses and revolves around a charismatic figurehead. Communism is not fascism. The Roman Empire was not a Fascist state. The theocratic Christian governments of the Medieval times were not Fascist states. DoughBob is basically saying that any government that does anything to give its people a sense of unity (by, say, giving them health care!) is “fascist.” It’s bloody daft, it dilutes the very definition of fascism itself and its purpose is to obfuscate everything to the point where people just might except Dr. Loadpants’ novel theory that liberals really are fascists.

The point Goldberg was making is based on his inability to grasp one simple thing – what a fascist is.

That makes his ‘point’s nonsense, and your defense of him even more nonsensical.

Go back, learn the basics, and try again.

dBa- amazingly, in his introduction, he claims that no one really knows what a “fascist” is before proceeding to write 400 pages claiming that liberals are more fascist than anyone in America. He literally admits he has no idea what he’s talking about in the damn introduction.

Ah, good, another glibertarian pretending that fascism has nothing to do with the right. This is obviously why fascists, formed in reaction to both liberal democracy and socialist activism, when they came to power were supported by the conservative parties, ruthlessly crushed trade unionism, imprisoned socialists and communists as enemies of the state, were exceptionally nationalist and xenophobic instead of internationalist, and completely disavowed any kind of class-based analysis of the world. It makes so much sense!

vimothy, people are mocking you not because they are afraid of your argument, but because your argument is on a par with 9/11 conspiracy theories, hollow earth theories, and Intelligent Design. Hayek and Mises, the originators of this unfortunate myth that the Nazis were of the left, (since they were “statist”, as crude an ideological reduction as the left/right dichtonomy) might be interesting thinkers (hey, I’ll cop to them being interesting, if mostly wrong, and I’m an anarcho-communist), but on the subject of fascism they weren’t just tremendously, abjectly wrong, but actively dishonest in framing fascism as not a right-wing phenomenon.

Oh, to be Jonah’s girlfriend….

Sorry, girls. He’s married.

Jonah’s Pantloadena is Jessica Gavora, a former speechwriter for John Ashcroft.

“Neither is what is called conservatism in America much like the conservatism of Edmund Burke, or what is called physics very similar to that of Newton. Is the complaint that people continued to think after the 18th century? I don’t get it.”

There are no complaints. Think what you want.

And I never said that US conservatism = classical liberalism (George Bush’s administration, e.g., is a good example of how far from classical liberalism it is possible for Republicans to go).

I see Rupert Murdoch makes Australian right wingers as stupid as American right wingers. Goddam, man, you are really as stupid as Jonah. A chrome plated turd is still a turd, fool.

I noticed the Introduction in the Table of Contents, it was then I decided I may have to go loiter in a bookstore and read it. I was thinking the introduction may provide some of the better laughiliciousness.

I think we’ve been a little, well, unkind to vimothy (although I disagree with most of what he says). Although, vimothy, you’ve made a mistake if you expected us to be seriously analyzing and rebutting. the bloggers at Sadly, No do indeed write blog posts they mean to be 100% serious, most of the time Sadly, No is a humor blog and we’re treating it this way in all the threads about this stupid book. It doesn’t read like serious writing, even serious writing meant to be deceptive. I once compared Jonah Goldberg to a cartoon character because the writing barely sounds serious, it sounds more like the ranting and raving of an unsympathetic character intended to draw pointing and laughing for being stupid and ridiculous.

And as I said before, I completely disagree with the points your making about Fascism. I have never heard anyone use Fascism to describe “the broad swathe of 20th century radical movements.” I have never even heard people call Fascism radical. On the contrary, Fascism is reactionary. I also think you have fallen into Goldberg’s trap. Goldberg is actually ignoring the elements that really define Fascism in favor of things that fascist officials did and liked. You, vimothy want to have a serious discussion about Fascism it seems to me. Goldberg is not trying to be serious, he is trying to be deceptive.

Vimothy,

I think they’re calling you Gary for your “it is obvious then” and misspellings. Fisking, then.

That would suggest that the KKK tended to despise Fascism then, but doesn’t so much now.

The KKK did not despise fascism, but Italians. In fact, there is nothing suggesting that fascist movements get along, because, after all, they are nationalist at their core.

1. Fascism (as in the specific political programme, not just the pejorative) is a statist tendency that originated with the modern socialist “movements of a new type” (to ues Lenin’s phrase) in the 20th Centuary.

With the growth in population and the growing political enfranchisement in most of late nineteenth century Europe, political, cultural and economic elites of all sorts tried to get a handle on this new possibility of political power, because an industrialized state is a mighty instrument to control. Socialist parties had some successes organizing workers and these elements were imitated. But you could just as easily argue that fascism drew its models from the absolutist kings (the leader and the state as one, the state above all), thereby “proving” fascism was most decidedly right wing.

3. Liberalism has nothing to do with the Democratic Party. Liberalism is the politics of Smith and Hulme, of the European Enlightenment, of private proerty and the impartial rule of law, of trade and commerce, and of the individual not the state.

No. Your take-back notwithstanding, both the Democratic Party and the Republican party are descended from the Liberal ideologies developed in the 19th century. They are the evolved (or “devolved,” if you wanna be snarky about it) left and right branches of said ideology. (I’m not sure if you’re trying to critique Jonah’s use of “liberal” here.) The two sides argue about the parameters of private property, etc., but they both take these ideas as a starting point.

Fascism and Nazism are a part of the left spectrum. Leftists should stop trying to pretend that simply because these movements were racist, they were “extreme right”. Yes, they were racists, but so were most (if not all) Communists.

Your argument hinges on two things:
a) that fascist and Nazi state intervention in their economies was “leftist”
b) that everyone was racist in the interwar years, therefore racism cannot be labeled as a right-wing characteristic.

I can use your b) argument to disprove your a) argument if I wish. All governments in the interwar period intervened in the economy (laissez-faire policies started the Great Depression, statist reaction exacerbated it). Ergo, intervening in the economy is not a leftist position, by your reasoning. (Or do you believe there were no right-wing governments in interwar Europe?)

Better, though: Nazis and fascists did not have consistent economic policies. Sometimes they allowed capitalists (hey, arms manufacturers & big banks) to operate unhindered; sometimes they ran a directed economy. In this case the new political elites (fascists and Nazis), allied themselves with the new-ish economic elites (capitalists), because they could offer each other support.

And another thing: do you really imagine that the American right in the present (or in Reagan’s or Nixon’s time) operates without intervention in the economy?

The only claim that you have to situate the fascists and Nazis on the left is the economic argument, and it fails.

In policy terms, Fascist were simply less extreme socialists (which partially accounts for Mussolini’s popularity), and as such share a lot in common with most modern western post-war governments – Blairite Britain or Scandanavian social democracy, for example. On this basis,

What basis? You’ve provided no evidence at all for these alleged leftist policies.

Surely you can grasp and reproduce fairly the point Goldberg is trying to make, even if you disagree with it.

We have two main choices.

We can take Goldberg’s arguments as they appear to be written, and they are hysterically wrong and self-parodying. Or we can reduce them to context free, banal platitudes, and then they are meaningless.

Take your pick. Spend your free time however you like.

Feel free to think about the points that you think Goldberg could be making, or should be making, or might be making if he were someone else, in some other time or some other place.

I won’t. Thanks.

As far as being unkind to people spewing nonsense, it beats patting them on the head and patronizing them.

If he wants us to be kind, he’d use some arguments that aren’t complete bullshit.

However, Fascism as a specific instance of these movements was a forerunner for many of the types of government that we have today. That includes (what you in the US call) conservative governments just as much as it includes (what you in the US call) liberal governments.

You seem to be confusing the power of the (post)modern state with an ideology that rose to capitalize on the existence of the modern state.

Fox, I still think vim is just an idiot troll. He knows damn well, or should, that his arguments are bullshit. Jonah is an idiot. ANYONE who defends him is an idiot. There really aren’t any exceptions that I can think of. I could be wrong though as I am objectively a fascist because I like the Beatles.

“vim- please. Not all statism is fascism. To suggest otherwise is the height of idiocy. Fascism, generally speaking, is a hyper-nationalistic authoritarian movement that thrives on nativist impulses and revolves around a charismatic figurehead. Communism is not fascism. The Roman Empire was not a Fascist state. The theocratic Christian governments of the Medieval times were not Fascist states. DoughBob is basically saying that any government that does anything to give its people a sense of unity (by, say, giving them health care!) is “fascist.” It’s bloody daft, it dilutes the very definition of fascism itself and its purpose is to obfuscate everything to the point where people just might except Dr. Loadpants’ novel theory that liberals really are fascists.”

Wow — an intelligent and considered comment. I knew that there was one in here somewhere. I hope the rest of you are taking notes.

You are right that not all statism is fascism. And of course Rome wasn’t a fascist state, because the conditions of its existence were completely different. Fascism is nothing if not modern. But that is not the point I am trying to make. Fascism shares with communism a belief that the individual is subordinate to the state. The collective is greater than the specific, whether we call that collective the “volk” or the “proletariat” is not important, and although drawing up qualitative differences between Russian and German forms of 20th C totalitarianism is possible, it surely misses the broader point that large-scale “fascist” (or if you prefer, counter-enlightenment) collectivisation and the enslavement of citizens to their society was bad in every instance, whether it be from an economic perspective (as ennunciated by Mises), or from the obvious (hopefully) political perspective.

Everyone should be big enough to see that there are very mundane parallels between Fascism and social democracy, as well as the huge differences that have been so eloquently identified by the commenters in this thread.

And that regardless of the (as I said) partisan point Goldberg is trying to make.

vimothy tends to like pie.

vim, EVERYONE here knows the point Goldberg is trying to make. It is NYAH, NYAH, NYAH, I know you are but what am I. And you damn well know it. Trolling for “intelligent and considered comment” in the way you did is just that. Trolling. You are pretty much a fuckwad as far as I can tell. All this bullshit to say there are mundane parallels that can be seen if you squint? I can make a parallel between anything and anything else if I am willing to ignore the truth of things.

“the broader point that large-scale “fascist” (or if you prefer, counter-enlightenment) collectivisation and the enslavement of citizens to their society was bad in every instance”

Any society is going to have a give and take with individual rights vs collective good. It’s pretty foolish to state that just because some society wants a collective good it is analogous to fascism. It’s sophistry.

Besides, if I crack open Arendt’s “The Origins of Totalitarianism” and look through op-eds in the NRO, I will find way more analogs than I would if I did the same comparison with say the AFLCIO or the Free Republic.

there are very mundane parallels between Fascism and social democracy

YES! And that’s why people have been mocking Jonah relentlessly. Very mundane, you said it yourself. That is why his book is so fucking stupid.

Another example, in case it hasn’t sunk in.

African-Americans wear hats sometimes.
KKK members wear hats sometimes.
African-Americans are often Christian, gathering in places with crosses.
KKK are typically Christian, gathering in places with crosses.
African-Americans have a number of pro-business members in their community.
KKK have a number of members in the Chamber of Commerce.

Holy shit! African-Americans and KKK have mundane parallels! They must be the same!

“Ah, good, another glibertarian pretending that fascism has nothing to do with the right. This is obviously why fascists, formed in reaction to both liberal democracy and socialist activism, when they came to power were supported by the conservative parties, ruthlessly crushed trade unionism, imprisoned socialists and communists as enemies of the state, were exceptionally nationalist and xenophobic instead of internationalist, and completely disavowed any kind of class-based analysis of the world. It makes so much sense!”

Yes, but you have to contend with the failure of the implicit counterfactual within your argument: Communists did this as well. It proves nothing. Demonstrate policy differences between Fascists and Communists or Socialists.

“vimothy, people are mocking you not because they are afraid of your argument, but because your argument is on a par with 9/11 conspiracy theories, hollow earth theories, and Intelligent Design.”

I don’t think that people are afraid of my argument. Why did you say that?

“Hayek and Mises, the originators of this unfortunate myth that the Nazis were of the left, (since they were “statist”, as crude an ideological reduction as the left/right dichtonomy) might be interesting thinkers (hey, I’ll cop to them being interesting, if mostly wrong, and I’m an anarcho-communist),”

Explain for me anarcho-communism and how it differs from standard communism, please. I’m particularly interested in actual plans for things like division of labour, price, and ownerwship of the means of production.

Oh and you might think that Hayek and Mises were mostly wrong, but they still nailed the contradicitons at the heart of socialist economics with such force that no one has been able to ressurect it.

“but on the subject of fascism they weren’t just tremendously, abjectly wrong, but actively dishonest in framing fascism as not a right-wing phenomenon.”

Not really, as long as you can understand what they mean by fascism, socialism and collectivism. Right-wing is beside the point, IMO.

oops that didn’t come out right, replace Free Republic with The New Republic

Rofl

Maybe Vim should reread that intelligent and considered response until he understands that in that intelligent and considered response he was called an idiot was then summarily smacked down.

Brad: Also, Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not ‘every man for himself.’ And the London Underground is not a political movement.

“You seem to be confusing the power of the (post)modern state with an ideology that rose to capitalize on the existence of the modern state.”

Fascism rose both in opposition and response to modernity, just like Nazism, Communism, etc.

Among the googolplex reasons Jonah’s premise makes no sense is that all historic fascist movements have been explicitly racist and anti-immigration and imperialist. Liberalism in the United States is practically defined by its total rejection and opposition to these tenets.

“the broader point that large-scale “fascist” (or if you prefer, counter-enlightenment) collectivisation and the enslavement of citizens to their society was bad in every instance”

Any society is going to have a give and take with individual rights vs collective good. It’s pretty foolish to state that just because some society wants a collective good it is analogous to fascism. It’s sophistry.

To add to Cokane’s point about sophistry: collectivization is not necessarily “counter-enlightenment.” The ideology behind a state-led ordering of the economy is “enlightened” at its core. It’s the rational element of the enlightenment–let experts organize society and the economy and they will be more efficient and make more of the society happy.

I just finished reading the comments thread- a good way to wake up on a bleary morning.

My first question today is: How many first printings are there of this amazing book? 50? 500? Surely not 5,000?

Also, I think “Hippy” is just conservative generic for “Liberal” these days.

For the curious, the former socialist Mussolini explained his outlook on how syndicalist fascism was better than theories of socialism, and it was the exact reversal of what everyone understood “socialism” or “communism” to mean.

In Marx’s analysis, the laws of history etc. meant that there must in any nation arise a conflict of classes between the proletarian class and the bourgeois class, once feudalism had been cast off in favor of capitalist industrialization. The pattern of development toward that conflict and the style and results and duration of that conflict would be historically contingent. (For the moment, it doesn’t matter whether Marx was right about anything, just that this argument was the core of the movements called “socialist” or “communist”.)

In Mussolini’s twist and reversal, he made his own use of Corradini’s theories of “Proletarian Nationalism”.

By doing so, he was able to make use of the successes of socialist and communist organizing in Italy while completely gutting it of its core meaning.

In this reversal, you see, it wasn’t class conflict WITHIN nations which was the real story. No, no, you see, Marx got it kind of wrong. You see, the real conflict was between proletarian NATIONS and bourgeois NATIONS.

Now, this isn’t a real “theory” in the sense that Marx was actually trying to use basic sociological principles to analyze social groups and behavior. It was, of course, mythologizing, in the sense of re-ifying non-entities in the style of sociological analysis.

And Mussolini wasn’t the type to care if it was true or not — if it effectively got people to rally behind forging one tightly and efficiently acting nation, organized into bodies (the corpus of “corporatism,” not meaning corporations) where social divisions were tamped down in favor of defeating the nation’s exploiters, then the theory worked.

There is simply no honest way to argue that because both theories emphasized the idea of “classes” of something and that there would be “conflict”, “exploitation,” or even “revolution” between those completely unrelated “classes” of objects, that they shared an intellectual foundation.

They shared historical roots and historical contexts, and often some phrasing, but then, advertisements which use the phrase “revolutionary” are not advocating proletarian class conflict.

. . . . and I kinda like D’ohy Pantload. I don’t know where I came across it. Or- did I make it up? Mmmmm. Don’t think so.

“To add to Cokane’s point about sophistry: collectivization is not necessarily “counter-enlightenment.” The ideology behind a state-led ordering of the economy is “enlightened” at its core. It’s the rational element of the enlightenment–let experts organize society and the economy and they will be more efficient and make more of the society happy.”

Collectivisation and command economics is a response to perceived failures produced by industrialisation, liberalisation, etc — i.e. the defining characteristics of the enlightenment. It presupposes them. Post war, re Keynesianism and neo-cassicalism I would probably agre with you.

Fascism is structured for the optimal good OF THE STATE, not the people. Liberal movements & demands are generally for the GOOD OF THE PEOPLE, or in the case of anti-pollution, global warming and so on, for the Good of the World.

Bob– I agree with you that vim is an idiot, but I don’t think he’s a troll, course I certainly see why you think he’s a troll.

vimothy– Any “mundane parallels” between social democracy and Fascism are irrelevant because the Fascist and the social democrat stand for two different things. Fascism and the Communism that took over coutnries in the twentieth century have more in common. In fact, Communism in reality has more in common with Fascism than the original works of Marx but that does not make Fascism a leftist ideology. A more accurate analysis would be that in reality, Communism originated as a left-wing idea and as soon as a state went Communist, it moved right (and usually the leaders had to break with Marx). It serves to show that in reality ideas do not remain fixed and can shift. This also illustrates the limited utility and sometime outright uselessness of describing an idea or ideology as left-wing or right-wing.
And I still think vimothy has fallen into the Pantload’s trap. Pantload is not trying to be a serious scholar, he’s being cynical, or stupid. Pantload is nust listing things that Fascists liked and assuming they are emblematic of Fascism and similar to things he associates with liberals.

Fozzetti, the state represents the people, and so the hope of commmunists and fascists and other collectivists is that the good of the state = the good of the people.

there are very mundane parallels between Fascism and social democracy,

To be serious for a moment, this is my main problem with what I understand so far of Jonah’s argument: It’s trivial. Fascists tried to control (essentially) everything. Therefore, any government that tries to control anything will have something in common with fascism, and by itself this isn’t interesting in the slightest. What we care about is whether a particular government is emulating the nasty bits of fascism. Goldberg (according to the blurb, anyway) appears to concede that the liberals aren’t, so that’s that.

Except that it isn’t, because “fascism” is (understandably) quite a loaded word; it makes the target sound ominous and totalitarian even when it’s used in a trivial way. Goldberg understands this perfectly well, as the introduction suggests; he just doesn’t care.

State reps people: NOT in a fascist, totalitarian world view. Nope.

Collectivisation and command economics is a response to perceived failures produced by industrialisation, liberalisation, etc — i.e. the defining characteristics of the enlightenment. It presupposes them. Post war, re Keynesianism and neo-cassicalism I would probably agre with you.

Okay, everybody. Vimothy’s just taking the piss. He’s having us on! He’s drunk! Lessee, in London, it’s happy hour, right?

Yes, industrialization, the defining characteristic of the Enlightenment. And them command economies were anti-industrialization, fo sho.

Good one!

“A more accurate analysis would be that in reality, Communism originated as a left-wing idea and as soon as a state went Communist, it moved right (and usually the leaders had to break with Marx). It serves to show that in reality ideas do not remain fixed and can shift. This also illustrates the limited utility and sometime outright uselessness of describing an idea or ideology as left-wing or right-wing.”

Wow there!

In what sense is Communism “rightist”, if we understand rightist to mean “classical liberal”?

In what sense did Communism deviate from Marx’s template?

Can you describe (honestly) a non-totalitarian Communism?

Why, if you are correct, did Communism go so badly wrong not only in Russia, but everywhere?

If Fascism and Communism are equivalent, what’s your point, semantics?

ism, ism, ism, ism, ism, ism, ism. All fucking bullshit. Serious discussion of bullshit is serious bullshit. It remains that Jonah’s TOTAL point is NYAH, NYAH, NYAH, libruls are bad meanie totalitarians. PERIOD. Nothing else. Oh, by the way, the enlightenment preceded the industrial revolution by nearly a century. But, what do I know?

Anybody need popcorn? I’m popping up a batch to watch two people split hairs with a mallet…

actor, it is mostly vim, in proxy of Jonah splitting the hairs. The rest of us are pretty much mocking the moron.

But pass the popcorn. Got any Parmesan?

“YES! And that’s why people have been mocking Jonah relentlessly. Very mundane, you said it yourself. That is why his book is so fucking stupid.

“Another example, in case it hasn’t sunk in.

“African-Americans wear hats sometimes.
KKK members wear hats sometimes.
…

“Holy shit! African-Americans and KKK have mundane parallels! They must be the same!”

Er, but we’re talking about politics, which should be of some relevance to politcal movements and parties, noty hats.

Yeah, boy howdy, nobody’s been arguing semantics until right now.

I mean, if Jonah had been arguing semantics, he would have defined what he means by fascism a little more clearly at some point, wouldn’t he?

(I’ll bet “Liberal Fascism” has Dinesh D’Souza in a lather. I’m sure he thought he had “Stupidest Conservative Interpretation of History” in the bag, and then Jonah’s book shows up and goose-steps all over his parade. Who would have thought there would be so much competition to be the “Edward D. Wood Jr. of Conservative History Writing”?)

I don’t understand what is being, um, “debated” here. Maybe there’s confusion about the purpose of there being different levels of analysis.

From the point of view of those ordinary people suffering from the early 20th century’s totalitarian dictatorships, I guess there really is little cause to wonder if there’s a difference between a “communist” and a “fascist” outlook, because they both seem to treat you quite similarly.

Maybe some people think that other than that, teasing out any differences is useless, or maybe even morally evil. You know, distinguishing Mao’s China from Hitler’s Germany is a waste of time. After all, they were both totalitarian, and said they were ruling for the interests of the people, and millions died and were slaughtered and imprisoned, etc., so what’s the big dealio.

So if you feel that way, great, and stop thinking that other people capable of noticing and analyzing the differences are somehow missing the similarities.

Yes, per Jonah, organic honey is at the center of all political movements.

Nice of you to fucking elide the economic and religious parts of my stupid KKK/Afr-Am comparison, or do those have nothing to do with politics?

Okay, since you’re still too dim-witted to grasp it.

Many KKK belonged to the Democratic party at some point in the past.*
Many African-Americans belonged to the Democratic party at some point in the past.

Holy Shit! African-Americans and KKK have mundane parallels! They must be the same!

*This, for Liberal Fascism, is a real conundrum, per the original post. So if the KKK were Democrats, then they were (liberal) fascists, but wait they’re not fascists, because they hated (Italian) fascists, and were called “fascists,” by (liberal) fascists, who are fascists because they are calling people (KKK) fascists. And they make organic honey, a fascist product.

I’m not debating, I’m merely drawing mundane parallels and simply coming to conclusions.

Next up is “Bush – It Only Seems Like Fascism – Because You Know, He Wasn’t A Hippy”

“what’s your point, semantics”

That’s pretty much been your argument from the start.

Maybe I was unclear, that happens. I never said that Fascism and Communism are equilantent (even though they both tend to be evil, and I dislike both equally). Oh do not put words in my mouth vimothy.
First, how did communism deviate from Marx and did it go so badly everywhere. Marx argued that communism would arise first in the advance industrial nations of western europe, with large proletariat populations. Lenin’s Russia had a proletariat that made up five percent of the population, and was not an advanced industrial state. China had no industry whatsoever and Mao deliberately replaced proletariat with peasent in his model. This is not the reason communism went badly. Communism went badly because it is an ineffective system implemented by poor leaders with a tendency to ignore the cultural realities of their people.
I never said Communism was rightist. It seemed to move from left to right with leaders such as Stalin and Mao, who make use of Fascist techniques. Mao focused on China and only China, no world revolution for Mao Tse-tung. Kim Il Sung focused on North Korea and only North Korea after he failed to spread revolution south. Stalin fought WWII by encrouaging patriotic fervor in the Soviet people, abandoning rhetoric about world revolution until the war ended. I am not saying the patriotism is a Fascistic trait. Fascistist manipulate nationalist and patriotic feelng to bolster their power, usually by adding paranoia. I can honestly describe non-totatlitarian communism: kibbutz, but that barely counts because the kibbutz functions within capitalism (hence my small c).

Now answer my questions vimothy: Why did ask me if I can honestly describe non-totalitarian Communism? And what’s with the question about why Communism went so badly? They seem to be non-sequitors. I answered because I like dumping on Communism.

“Everyone should be big enough to see that there are very mundane parallels between Fascism and social democracy…”

Yes, mundane enough as to be meaningless. It sounds like Goldberg is starting with the crudest possible dichotomy–individual vs. collective–and on that basis is claiming that anything that finds merit in the collective is “fascist,” which is the uber-collective.

Talk about “you’re either with us or against us.” (His argument–classic wingnut hypocrisy aside–is, in its implicit iron standard of hyper-individualism (which they honor mainly in the breach) itself fascist. Ironically.)

Meanwhile, in the Vim-generated discussion, I’m wondering what role the political party plays. Fascism equates the state with the Party, doesn’t it? Liberalism (even in our debased form) and social democracy don’t.

Why, if you are correct, did Communism go so badly wrong not only in Russia, but everywhere?

I suggest you consult Emma Goldman on that topic. Look for writings from December 1917.

hehehe. bob, I’d like to buy a “j”. hehehe.

sorry, kenga, I don’t sell pot. It’s illegal.

But shoot that gage this way, Ace!

Apparently what honest decent people think are the bad things about the Nazis doesn’t have anything to do with Fascism.

(Jonah’s book sounds like one of the greatest mysteries ever written. I’m on the edge of my seat! Do you find out how he defines Fascism at the end? Don’t give it away?!?!?)

the state represents the people, and so the hope of commmunists and fascists and other collectivists is that the good of the state = the good of the people.

Wrong. In purer communism, the state represents people. The collective is that people are a portion of the state. The Soviets and others threw in totalitarian & xenophobia and in a way never moved beyond the revolutionary oligarchy stage in Marx.

In fascism, the state is a nebulous entity much like today’s corporations (see “The Grapes of Wrath” for best description of the corporation). The people exist solely outside the state to support and almost worship the state. The fascist share the totalatarian & xenophobia of the communist sate, but it doesn’t mean that both are left.

JONAH: Stoobid bucking bascist blowers gibbin me aylergies! Mooooooommmm!!! I wanna write a book bout how blowers are bascist weeds!

S,NOS: What the fuck is he talking about?

VIMOTHY: You know, I disagree with much of what he says, but you must admit that flowers are weeds.

S,NOS: No they aren’t. Lot’s of weeds don’t have flowers. And lots of flowering plants aren’t weeds.

VIMOTHY: But there are mundane similarities. They have roots and leaves, etc.

S,NOS: Thats all plants. What about peach trees? They have flowers and they aren’t weeds.

VIMOTHY: Those are trees. We aren’t talking about trees, we are talking about weeds.

S,NOS: But the whole reason that we kill weeds is to make room for nicer plants, like flowers. They are as opposite as plants can be.

VIMOTHY: I don’t know why we can’t have a reasonable, rational debate here. I am trying to make serious points about how flowers are weeds and suddenly you are acting like I’m saying I don’t like flowers.

S,NOS: You just aren’t making any fucking sense, dude. None whatsoever. You’re being a douche.

VIMOTHY: Typical liberals, unwilling to engage in a reasonable discussion.

In what sense is Communism “rightist”, if we understand rightist to mean “classical liberal”?

Hmm…l so it really depends on definitions, dunnit? In what sense is Communism “fascist” if we understand “fascist” to mean “preoccupied with butterfly collecting”?

[…] discourse. Filed under: Douchebags — JasonC @ 12:54 pm […]

That being the case, why does my pointing out the aspects of Goldberg’s thought that have merit or at the very least some historical validity draw immediate abuse and misrepresentation?

Because your definitions of “merit” and “historical validity” are as flaccid and useless as Goldburp’s definition of fascism.

… we understand “fascist” to mean “preoccupied with butterfly collecting”?

Dan, I asked you all not to give away the ending!

“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.”

I’ve been perusing the mass of Pantload reviews, and it was pointed out that the line above is undeniable proof that the Pantload is an unmitigated moron.

Can Vim spot the error?

Because your definitions of “merit” and “historical validity” are as flaccid and useless as Goldburp’s definition of fascism.

On the nosey!

Here’s what you win: A copy of “Liberal Fascism” autographed by Thomas Sowell. (Who WISHES he had written this magnum opus.)

Trilateral Chairman got it.

Fascists like to control everything.
Liberals want to control things they perceive to be harmful.
Therefore, liberals are fascists.
And since Conservatives do not want to control anything, they are not fascists.

FUCK! That hurt my brain just to type. And people actually think this way?

I am so ashamed for my species.

Here’s what you win: A copy of “Liberal Fascism” autographed by Thomas Sowell. (Who WISHES he had written this magnum opus.)

Splendid. I shall use the weighty tome to engage in the fascist activity of pressing flowers. How do I know it is a fascist activity you ask? Simple: Some fascist some where must have pressed flowers, ergo everyone who presses flowers is a fascist!

In what sense is Communism “rightist”, if we understand rightist to mean “classical liberal”?

I don’t think that’s a very good understanding of “rightist,” actually. If you take that definition, Communism doesn’t fit. But then neither do right-wing dictatorships of the sort the US used to sponsor in Latin America. A better definition of “rightist” – one that more closely meets its actual usage – would be something like “a nationalistic, authoritarian government that places security ahead of other concerns.” On that definition, Soviet Russia was just as “rightist” as Pinochet’s Chile.

There’s a difference between Communism-in-Theory and Communism-in-Practice. C-i-T attempted to resolve the contradictions inherent in lasseiz-faire capitalism by putting the people who created value in charge, instead of the people who profited from their labor. C-i-P simply replaced businessmen and bankers with the State.

If we understand “rightist” to mean “classical liberal” we also need to understand that the Democrats are right-leaning centrists, at worst/best.

In what sense did Communism deviate from Marx’s template?

The substitution of the State or Party for the people as the rulers, for one thing.

Can you describe (honestly) a non-totalitarian Communism?

I’m not sure it’s been tried, although some people point to parts of Spain just prior to and during the Spanish Civil War. Nor am I sure it’s even possible; once someone has to take charge, it’s not so easy to put “the people” back in the saddle.

Why, if you are correct, did Communism go so badly wrong not only in Russia, but everywhere?

C-i-P went wrong because the State was neither a good business manager nor, in the end, responsive to the needs of the people. Businesses do a better job of turning a profit that governments do, since making money is their entire object. Representative governments are more responsive to the needs of the people than authoritarian governments that developed under C-i-P.

If Fascism and Communism are equivalent, what’s your point, semantics?

I think the point is that American liberals are neither, which is why Goldberg’s work is a joke.

Yes, and let’s not forget that the loudest criticisms of Fascism in the mid-30s in the U.S. and U.K. were Leftists who were not pleased with Hitler’s mass arrest of Communists following the Reichstag fire, or with Franco’s supporters gunning down Spanish Socialists (which began the Civil War), or Mussolini’s abolishment of independent labor unions. – Andrew Levine

And McCarthy, whom conservatives even to this day occassionally decide to try to rehabilitate, and his crowd, after the war, tried to destroy the lives of these “pre-mature anti-fascists”. I guess Jonah would argue that McCarthy et al. were right as anybody who was against fascism before WWII was the same as the KKK who evidently didn’t like Mussolini.

Of course, this merely parallels how liberals, considered about what they call today “Islamofascism” pre-9/11 were dismissed by the same people for whom “9/11 changed everything”(TM) and then those of us who had a clue before hand and hence for whom 9/11 didn’t change everything are now considered soft on terror ’cause we don’t wanna go to war with everyone? Wait until they call Sandy “Pants on Fire” Berger a pre-mature anti-Islamofascist.

Jonah’s book sounds like one of the greatest mysteries ever written. I’m on the edge of my seat! Do you find out how he defines Fascism at the end?

In the library, with a candle stick.

Wow. Just wow.

Good morning, Sadlys!

Um, is this fun?

mikey

I think vimothy has left the building. Damn, he was an entertaining troll.

Can you describe (honestly) a non-totalitarian Communism?

Any hippie commune from the 60s, but I’m getting ahead of myself. How about The Ardens, Delaware and Fairhope, Alabama? Both Georgist communities right here in the U.S. Although I have heard that Fairhope switched over. Still, it is an intriguing question, simply because I can’t think of a more totalitarian and authoritarian “commune” than any American military base. That’s communism, baby.

Anyway, as Altemeyer said, somewhat cryptically, but he said it none the less when asked about Left Wing Authoritarians. He said he went looking for them but they were “as rare as hen’s teeth”.

An interview where Altemeyer expands on this, thanks to Trefayne:

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2007/10/its_a_mad_mad_mad_milgram_worl.html

As Mike Huben observes in response to propertarian privatizers in his Libertartianism in One Lesson:

“Private ownership is the cure for all problems, despite the historical record of privately owned states such as Nazi Germany, Czarist and Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China.”

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/onelesson.html

Some will respond that this can’t be. Learn it, pupster.

Mike debates these issues regularly with the likes of David Friedman.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/ddfr.html

Say! An entertaining troll for once. And defending Doughbob Loadpants, no less!

I find it hilarious that someone would troll this website in defense of that sad sack of shit.

“I think the point is that American liberals are neither, which is why Goldberg’s work is a joke.”

To be fair, there are many reasons this ‘work’ is a joke. Mundaneity, twisted facts, dishonesty, lack of historical understanding…

But that won’t deter the right from citing his book as a source in whatever future arguments they intend to make.

I foresee Pantloads of comedy..

One final observation:

When Jonah talks about people who want to ban this substance or that behavior, the term for that is more precisely prohibitionist, not fascist.

At least to my way of thinking, and they usually have a very narrow focus.

The GOP – A Narrow Focus and a Wide Stance

Way, way up the top there MzNicky said,

I think Doughy thinks it’s “ironic” is because it’s really the liberals who are fascists, see?

That’s how I read it too. Which makes his statement a rare illustration of the correct definition of the logical fallacy of Begging The Question: to accept the statement is “ironic” you have to assume the truth of what he is supposedly trying to prove.

Hunka hunka burnin’ stupid.

*waves at Mikey, resumes oh, so productive day at office*

Ah, its a perfect microcosm of Teh Big Stupid:

Idiot Number One (Goldberg) pinches off a 400 page ode to the fallacy of the undistributed middle (all A are B, C is a B, ergo C is an A).

When Idiot Number One is righteously mocked for his fallacious reasoning and ridiculous conclusions, Idiot Number Two (vimothy) toddles by to accuse the mockers of ideological bias.

Classic.

Do we know for sure that Idiot Number One isn’t the same as Idiot Number Two?

After all, Doughboy spouts teh Stoopid, vimothy supports the stoopid spouted by Doughboy. Ipso facto, Doughboy=vimothy!

I haven’t read all 300+ posts, so forgive me if this is a restatement.

This is exactly the same kind of stupid that makes PowerLine and their like call John Cole, say, a liberal: namely, the idea that ideology isn’t about what you believe, but who you love more. If you hate George Bush, and George Bush is a conservative, then you must not be a conservative! Likewise, Mussolini was a fascist, so anybody who didn’t like Mussolini wasn’t a fascist.

Yes, they were racists, but so were most (if not all) Communists.

Yeah, like that fucking racist asshole W.E.B. Du Bois.

People who ‘bought’ this book, also bought:

“A Charge to Keep Charging: How the Fiscal Policies of George W. Bush Saved the USA”
“Jerry Falwell: Good News from the Other Side”
“1001 Uses for Shredded Paper”
“Hunting the Elusive Wing clipped Quail” by R. Cheney
“The Democratic Rush to War” by K. Rove

Doesn’t the fact that they hated Mussolini for being a foreigner make them more – and not less – fascist?

Shorter vim: from the perspective of a Hayekian, they’re all fascists.

Which is like saying ‘from the perspective of an amoeba, everything’s pretty fucking big.’

the defining characteristics of the enlightenment.

Vimothy: What was the slogan of the French Revolution, which I think we can both agree was a product of the enlightenment?

It was not “liberté, liberté, liberté”, as you seem to think, but “liberté, egalité, fraternité.” The point of the Enlightenment was not just the formation of current thinking about liberty – the ideas of equality and social brotherhood form just as much a part of the wide range of thinking. Why else would Enlightenment thinkers like Rousseau and Saint-Simon be considered forefathers of socialist thought (amongst anarchist and liberal traditions as well, of course)? Why else would Mill, one of the great thinkers of the liberal and utilitarian traditions, writer of On Liberty and proponent of the harm principle, end up arguing in favour of a quasi-socialism?

Socialism was as much a product of the Enlightenment as liberalism was; its’ focus was more on the egalité and the fraternité, but it was still a definite part of Enlightenment thought. As someone noted, rationalism and empiricism were also key concepts of the enlightenment, which is why socialists look to “rational planning”, etc. It is most decidedly not a product of the counter-enlightenment, as fascism undoubtedly is, which is a much later phenomenon.

Uh oh.

All fascists are human beings (if you don’t count my cats). Therefore all human beings are fascists!!

vimothy said,

Er, but we’re talking about politics, which should be of some relevance to politcal movements and parties, noty hats.

Oh? And the, um, KKK wasn’t a political movement? It wasn’t created in response to the Reconstruction and the northern carpetbaggers?

Or are you just arguing to hear your fat yap flap?

the Dems should be closer in principle to Fascist policies than the republicans

Ahahahahahahaha!

the Dems should be closer in principle to Fascist policies than the republicans

You forgot to put the “Shorter DLC” in front of that.

Pedestrian gets post of the thread.

Oh, and all the BS floating around from Vimothy and any other putative supporters of Doughbob’s “thesis” stems from one root in particular.

Doughbob’s book might actually be as revolutionary as he hopes it will be. It is a massive exercise in “rebranding,” in changing the terms of the debate.

The best and most successful example of this sort of thing is where the conservative Right in the United States has had a great deal of success re-defining the root causes of the Civil War.

“It wasn’t about slavery, it was about states’ rights.”

Never mind that the Confederates’ constitution contained this little gem:

“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

and this:

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

So even if a Confederate State outlawed slavery, the central government’s prohibited it from carrying out abolition.

But its about heritage, right? State’s Rights? Dog-whistle racism?

Likewise, Doughbob’s magnum fartus is to muddy the debate in the eyes of those who can’t be bothered to read source documents. All it really is, is a 400-page explication of why the second letter in “NSDAP” was “socialist.”

What we’ve seen here today is a perfect example of the old saw that some ideas are so very stupid that only a smart person can believe them.

Fergodssakes, this should shut the trolls up: look at the political compass to see why Jonah’s claim that “LIEbruls == fascists” equals complete bullshit.

Honestly, what is wrong with some people?

Can you describe (honestly) a non-totalitarian Communism?

The Spanish anarchists? If you want a literary description, read Ursula Le Guin’s The Dispossessed. Strictly speaking, it’s anarchic socialism, but it’s a non-totalitarian leftist system, which is essentially what you asked for.

“sorry, kenga, I don’t sell pot. It’s illegal.”

Fucking commie, why do you hate the free market system?!?!?

[…] you cannot make up anything for parody purposes than sounds crazier than the things conservatives already say, every single day, in front of the entire world and in perfect […]

Why are those men waving at us, Mommy?

“Can you describe (honestly) a non-totalitarian Communism?”

Yes. Cuba. Other poor states around former USSR. See, a necessary ingredient to totalitarianism is definitely some sort of imperialism. You glibertarians always seem to forget that totalitarianism grew out of imperialism.

Shorter Vim: Gates of Vienna is in my blogroll.

“The Spanish anarchists? If you want a literary description, read Ursula Le Guin’s The Dispossessed. Strictly speaking, it’s anarchic socialism, but it’s a non-totalitarian leftist system, which is essentially what you asked for.”

More or less what I was thinking of, although I’m probably more statist than Bienventura Durrutti. 😉

[…] shake the very foundations of political thought. The good folks over at Sadly, No! have bravely delved into this weighty tome. If you think you know what a fascist is, Goldberg’s got news for you: […]

“Fergodssakes, this should shut the trolls up: look at the political compass to see why Jonah’s claim that “LIEbruls == fascists” equals complete bullshit.”

I wouldn’t expect that anyone who thinks George Bush or Gordon Brown is a “neo-liberal” would be able to grasp this.

Anarchism = libertarianism? Fascism is not collectivist? Puh-lease…

“As someone noted, rationalism and empiricism were also key concepts of the enlightenment, which is why socialists look to “rational planning”, etc. It is most decidedly not a product of the counter-enlightenment, as fascism undoubtedly is, which is a much later phenomenon.”

That being the case, why did fascists take to rational planning with such enthusiasm?

“All it really is, is a 400-page explication of why the second letter in “NSDAP” was “socialist.””

Pity that so many are unable to admit that this is so.

“What we’ve seen here today is a perfect example of the old saw that some ideas are so very stupid that only a smart person can believe them.”

My thoughts on socialism in a nutshell.

Any hippie commune from the 60s, but I’m getting ahead of myself. How about The Ardens, Delaware and Fairhope, Alabama? Both Georgist communities right here in the U.S. Although I have heard that Fairhope switched over.

Yes, perhaps a tiny community in a rich, developed state might be able to survive with common ownership of the means of production, no rational pricing and no private property, but how do actual states do?

Still, it is an intriguing question, simply because I can’t think of a more totalitarian and authoritarian “commune” than any American military base. That’s communism, baby.

Maybe.

Anyway, as Altemeyer said, somewhat cryptically, but he said it none the less when asked about Left Wing Authoritarians. He said he went looking for them but they were “as rare as hen’s teeth”.

Yeah, right: there is no left without authoritarianism, because collective economic control presupposes it.

An interview where Altemeyer expands on this, thanks to Trefayne:

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2007/10/its_a_mad_mad_mad_milgram_worl.html

Doesn’t look like an interview to me, but I did like this:

“A small, energetic, organized minority that’s impervious to reason will always do harm to everybody else.”

Yes, and it happens all the time, because there’s no possible way that a small group of people can effectively manage the affairs of society as a whole. Collect ten Hayek points and shift right down the “neo-lib” axis.

As Mike Huben observes in response to propertarian privatizers in his Libertartianism in One Lesson:

“Private ownership is the cure for all problems, despite the historical record of privately owned states such as Nazi Germany, Czarist and Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China.”

More so-called “humour”. All those states were collectivist, and with the transition of Maoist China to DXP reform and private ownership, we can see exactly the difference with regards to growth.

Some will respond that this can’t be. Learn it, pupster.

“Some”?

Mike debates these issues regularly with the likes of David Friedman.

Anarcho-capitalism is about as coherent as anarcho-communism. As everyone here should know, without solid institutions, capitalism doesn’t work.

Anyway, as Altemeyer said, somewhat cryptically, but he said it none the less when asked about Left Wing Authoritarians. He said he went looking for them but they were “as rare as hen’s teeth”.

Yeah, right: there is no left without authoritarianism, because collective economic control presupposes it.

It may be important to remember that Altemeyer was not saying it was theoretically impossible for there to be Left Wing Authoritarians — just that empirically, the Authoritarians found via his research were NOT left wing.

Given that there are no significant Communist or Maoist parties in the USA, which are both left wing AND authoritarian, this is not so difficult to envision.

It was Altemeyer who (for his research purposes) came up with the measurable scale of the authoritarian personality which he would use, and sought it ought, and then measured the other political views of individuals who did or did not have that personality.

If you have a beef with how Altemeyer chose to define the authoritarian personality (he wasn’t the first, but he certainly chose the outline he felt to be more supported), then have at it, but in classic social science and psychological research tradition, Altemeyer defined the personality to be investigated first, and then sought out additional information which could be correlated.

It seems like you’re unhappy that he defined “authoritarian personality” without pre-defining it in political terms, rather the empirical approach he actually used, in which you don’t select on your dependent variable, but first define independent variables.

There’s a difference between Communism-in-Theory and Communism-in-Practice. C-i-T attempted to resolve the contradictions inherent in lasseiz-faire capitalism by putting the people who created value in charge, instead of the people who profited from their labor. C-i-P simply replaced businessmen and bankers with the State.

Of course, because because someone has to make decisions on behalf of the “people who created value”, and that someone can only be the state. There is no other way to create a communist society, which is why all communist countries have ended up as totalitarian hell-holes.

The substitution of the State or Party for the people as the rulers, for one thing.

It’s quite clear that “the people” is short-hand / obfuscation for the state in any case. How do “the people” make decisions as a collective — psychically? No, someone has to make decisions on their behalf, otherwise nothing will happen.

I’m not sure it’s been tried, although some people point to parts of Spain just prior to and during the Spanish Civil War. Nor am I sure it’s even possible; once someone has to take charge, it’s not so easy to put “the people” back in the saddle.

It is impossible. Suppression of the natural instinct to trade for personal profit and to regard the biological family as the unit of trust is only possible through state control. Communism must be imposed, while capitalism (in its most generalised form) occurs as soon as it is allowed to.

C-i-P went wrong because the State was neither a good business manager nor, in the end, responsive to the needs of the people. Businesses do a better job of turning a profit that governments do, since making money is their entire object. Representative governments are more responsive to the needs of the people than authoritarian governments that developed under C-i-P.

C-i-P went wrong because it’s a bad system in theory. Businesses are better at guarding their own interests because knowledge is dispersed and not easy for a government to absorb across the economy as a whole.

I think the point is that American liberals are neither, which is why Goldberg’s work is a joke.

American liberals are seemingly not at all liberal, they are statists who equate authoritarian collectivisms with left or right as it suits them, without ever questioning the wisdom of their own collectivist, authoritarian tendencies.

And when confronted with this, they shout loudly.

It may be important to remember that Altemeyer was not saying it was theoretically impossible for there to be Left Wing Authoritarians — just that empirically, the Authoritarians found via his research were NOT left wing.

So it’s a personality test. It proves very little. It’s not important whether US leftists are authoritarian or whether they smack their children, but whether leftism is a political philosophy is authoritarian. It quite clearly is.

Given that there are no significant Communist or Maoist parties in the USA, which are both left wing AND authoritarian, this is not so difficult to envision.

Well, I’m no expert on US Communists, but there is no way that one could be a Communist or Maoist and not be authoritarian, since there is no other way to enforce common ownership.

It was Altemeyer who (for his research purposes) came up with the measurable scale of the authoritarian personality which he would use, and sought it ought, and then measured the other political views of individuals who did or did not have that personality.

I don’t think that personlity type should come into this. I might be a dragon, but as long as I’m only a dragon in my own house and not whatever sector your working in, it shouldn’t matter.

If you have a beef with how Altemeyer chose to define the authoritarian personality (he wasn’t the first, but he certainly chose the outline he felt to be more supported), then have at it, but in classic social science and psychological research tradition, Altemeyer defined the personality to be investigated first, and then sought out additional information which could be correlated.

I just find it hard to take seriously. For one thing, “neo-liberalism” is libertarianism, so having them on different axes makes no sense. Do you have any good links where the rational and methodology is explained?

Treating the land as common property, and collecting land rent from those who hold title to various bits of it is completely different from “owning the means of production.” The goal is for individuals and corporations to own the “means of production” — and not be taxed on it or on what they produce, as long as they aren’t harming the environment or creating a monopoly, but to pay to their community the full — and likely rising — annual value of the land they claim title to. Jefferson used the word usufruct.

Royalties are due to the community for finite natural resources removed from the remaining store, whether the land is titled to a level of government or to a private party, and their value should be reconsidered regularly. (Jed Clampett did not create the oil. His shot may have discovered it, but there is no reason to think that someone else would never have found it, and therefore there is no particularly valid defense for privatizing the value of that natural resource.)

Treating the land as common property, and collecting land rent from those who hold title to various bits of it is completely different from “owning the means of production.”

Hardly completely different – they both involve common ownership of resources, with all of the problems that entails.

The goal is for individuals and corporations to own the “means of production”

What you’re describing above is not common ownership.

Jed Clampett did not create the oil. His shot may have discovered it, but there is no reason to think that someone else would never have found it, and therefore there is no particularly valid defense for privatizing the value of that natural resource.

No one “creates” anything, they find stuff that already exists and rearrange it (into petrol, into computers, into communications networks, etc). If you can buy the oil that you need and that Jed discovered (and extracted and refined — oil in the ground is no use to anyone), then that’s enough.

[…] Or not. […]

I am soooooooo confused…..Woodrow Wilson was a fascist?