Let’s Talk About The Future Now We’ve Put The Past Away
The Liberal Fascism blog, now that it actually has content beyond “This is the first post”, gives us an insightful glimpse into the creative process behind the writing of a great book. We learn what one does — and what one doesn’t do — when crafting such an epic work of scholarship.
For example, one does rely heavily upon historical research that does not actually appear in one’s book:
One of the richest resources for my argument is Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists.
One does not give one’s readers any credits, though, nor does one include any history in one’s history book. And one certainly does not use an example just because it might lend credence to one’s argument:
But I made the conscious effort not to go fishing for convenient fascist movements most readers had never heard of.
One does avoid discussing any historical discussion, however relevant, that might include the mention of an article of clothing:
As I’ve told people who wanted me to deal with the Blue Shirts of China or Mosley’s Silver Shirts, “I don’t do shirts.”
Even if one obviously couldn’t be bothered to think of something when one was ‘researching’ the book, one does not forget to mention the thing after they have been brought to one’s attention:
Still, I think it might be interesting to revisit Mosley and his crowd here in the days to come.
One does behave like a true gentleman and mention that one’s peers are much more qualified than one’s self to write a book about the subject:
Several of NR’s best contributors know a great deal about this stuff, starting with David Pryce-Jones (who wrote a book about Unity Mitford, the Hitler-worshipping sister of Oswald Mosley’s wife, Diana) and Mark Steyn who could write a book about the Mitfords.
One does not respond to more than 1% of idiocy:
I look forward to some interesting debates down the line, and I think I probably should be less intemperate. But I’m a big believer in reviewing reviewers. Lord knows I’m not responding to 99% of the idiocy being thrown at me. I plan on doing more of this because I think it’s important. If it makes me look thin-skinned, that’s unfortunate because I think the opposite is pretty obviously the case given all the stuff thrown at me. But if it make me look that way, so be it. It’s easier to enjoy life when you feel you didn’t let people get away with b.s. when you had the chance.
One does share with Hitler a contempt for the process of law and the notion that the will of the people should determine the treatment of ethnic minorities:
But it’s true liberalism’s faith in a “living constitution” is profoundly illiberal. The liberal fondness for a supreme court that consults foreign laws is inherently undemocratic and illiberal. It’s investment in the UN, Davos and other transnational elite institutions smacks of an (HG) Wellsian contempt for localism, sovereignty and democracy.* Racial quotas are wildly unpopular according to public opinion surveys and yet they are imposed from above everywhere in contravention of the spirit of egalitarianism and in accordance with liberal racial essentialism.
That gives me a great idea for a book!
* Gavin adds: Indeed, it was the same thoroughgoing contempt for German sovereignty and ‘blood and soil’ that led Hitler to suggest the party name, Internationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (ISDAP), or International Socialist German Workers’ Party — which is why, today, we call these German fascists ‘the Izzies.’
Jillian adds from I Like Trike in the comments:
This guy is killing me:
Oswald Mosley’s British fascist group were actually called the Black Shirts.
The Silver Shirts were the name of an American fascist group run by one William Dudley Pelley.
The source of Jonah’s confusion? Why, Harry Turtledove alternate history series, which called Mosley’s group the Silver Shirts.
So here we have documented evidence his research isn’t coming from actual history, but alternate history. Sigh.
Interestingly enough, our own Silver Shirt fascists were rabidly anti-Communist, anti-FDR, and anti-New Deal, which makes it difficult to see how they could ever have been “liberal” – but this is central to my point.
Alright, it’s off topic, and for that I do apologize, but I need to draw your attention to Ezra Levant’s grandstanding at his preliminary Canadian Human Tribunal hate crime complaint thing. The video is over on Small Dead Animals…for anyone who doesn’t know, Ezra published the Danish Mohammed cartoons in his hate-filled magazine, The Western Standard, back in ’06.
OMG, and check out the comments…it saddens me to no end that these are some of my fellow Canuckistanians. Man, thank god I’m fascist…
Doughy Pantload!!!
He’s the man, the man with the Scobie Touch!!
(w/apologies to whoever wrote/sang the Goldfinger theme.)
http://www.amazon.com/End-America-Letter-Warning-Patriot/dp/1933392797
This book by Naomi Wolf is a good antidote to Goldberg as it shows some real fascist-like connections with Bush and today’s conservatives.
“As I’ve told people who wanted me to deal with the Blue Shirts of China or Mosley’s Silver Shirts, “I don’t do shirts.”
Iron my shirt, motherfucker.
Oswald Mosley?
He does know that Mosley’s held in fairly high regard by the BNP, doesn’t he?
And he knows that BNP aren’t even remotely “liberal”, yes?
Wait, what am I saying. This is Jonah Goldberg. Of course he doesn’t know this.
I am so glad he started a blog for his dOpus. It’s like having Christmas over and over and over…
Johan likes his Constitutions like he likes his women. Dead, cold and inflexible.
Typo alert after “For example”. Missing a blockquote down lower.
But I correct from a position of love and admiration. And fascism.
Ooo. The blogosphere self-corrects while-u-wait.
What in the hell is he saying here? Isn’t that like a Zen koan or something?
Fixed.
Johan likes his Constitutions like he likes his women. Happy when they are ignored.
But it’s true liberalism’s faith in a “living constitution” is profoundly illiberal.
Ok, forgive me for asking, for of the many things I am, educated is not one of them.
But wouldn’t anything, ANYTHING that liberals do pretty much constitute “liberalism”? I mean, if they are liberals, then their beliefs and actions should be “liberal”, right? Or otherwise, they wouldn’t BE liberals. They’d be whatever their actions were representative of, right?
My brain hurts…
mikey
I’m pretty sure Jonah doesn’t rape women.
Where’s the Pantomime Horse?
Let me join in:
The liberal fondness for a supreme court that consults foreign laws is inherently undemocratic and illiberal.
You know what’s undemocratic? suppresing votes. It’s a good thing US Law was created ex nihilo, with no consultation on any ‘foreign’ law, and that no conservative ever calls for the imposition of, say, laws practiced by desert nomads from 3,000 years ago. Not that would be illiberal (by which I mean, “not fascist,” which, like, isn’t that a good thing? Since when is “not liberal” a bad thing in JG’s doughy eyes?)
It’s [sic] investment in the UN, Davos and other transnational elite institutions smacks of an (HG) Wellsian contempt for localism, sovereignty and democracy.
Which is precisely why the Republicans threw their weight against NAFTA in the 90s and why the neocons never advocate intervening in foreign elections, unless, of course we count Venezuela…and, well, keep counting.
Racial quotas are wildly unpopular according to public opinion surveys and yet they are imposed from above everywhere in contravention of the spirit of egalitarianism and in accordance with liberal racial essentialism.
Let’s see: liberal racism essentialism.
….And “everywhere”? Like in my pants? Awesome.
“But I made the conscious effort not to go fishing for convenient fascist movements most readers had never heard of.”
OK, fuck me; “convenient” and “never heard of ” ?
It’s ; like trying to net the fish out of the aquarium so you can clean the fucking tank !
“But it’s true liberalism’s faith in a “living constitution” is profoundly illiberal.”
Actually, the Shitload is completely wrong. That anyone would have to explain how wrong he is just more proof of how profoundly stupid he is.
Wingnut talking points no matter how shiny you try to make them, are still just wingnut talking points, indeed, they are central to his ‘point’.
Right now!!!! On C-Span2 on BookTV (they’re stretching that definition), Pantload is on talking about Liberal Fascism!
The Doughy Pantload: Proving Stupidity Isn’t Lethal (but That It Should Be Made So) Since 1998.
(w/apologies to whoever wrote/sang the Goldfinger theme.)
No apologies necessary Jennifer. It was Shirley Bassey, who makes Liza sound like Dianna Krall.
This guy is killing me:
Oswald Mosley’s British fascist group were actually called the Black Shirts.
The Silver Shirts were the name of an American fascist group run by one William Dudley Pelley.
The source of Jonah’s confusion? Why, Harry Turtledove alternate history series, which called Mosley’s group the Silver Shirts.
So here we have documented evidence his research isn’t coming from actual history, but alternate history. Sigh.
Oswald Mosley: unheard of liberal Fascist who totally proves everything Goldberg said. Yep.
Why not? If you’re going to create a work of fiction, might as well draw from other sources of fiction.
He means convenient for super-smart DoughBlobs who have done, like, major amounts of research into all sorts of scholarly tomes (honest), but would be unfamiliar to his readers who aren’t super smart and edjumacated like Johan because only fascists edjumacated.
Except Johan.
And that is central to my point.
OK, fuck me; “convenient” and “never heard of ” ?
Should have included that in my blockquote.
But that, too, is central to my point. Also.
Indeed.
Here’s some Pantomime Horse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER0J7Ui11vU
But seriously, I think I discovered Don Escurremierda’s schtick:
Namecheck other conservative “thinkers”, use a generous amount of -isms and -esians (“liberalism … localism … egalitarianism … essentialism … Wellsian” [and that’s just one paragraph!]) and have a thesaurus handy in order to search for unnecessarily ostentatious words to dazzle the rubes, all while making a vague and indefensibly atrocious argument. After all, most of his core, target audience will be so impressed by the pseudo-intellectual ivory-tower-speak and references that they will nod their heads approvingly and quote his inane ramblings…
Good Lord I just turned on Book TV. He talks really fast. He’s in WAY over his head and I think he knows it.
The fecal touch, I’ve always called it. He’s the man…
I am so looking forward to Tuesday.
Link to BTTV
He’s banking on the Dopeler Effect*
* The tendency of stupid ideas to appear more intelligent as they approach the observer at a rapid velocity.
Pillow fight!
“The tendency of stupid ideas to appear more intelligent as they approach the observer at a rapid velocity.”
Or just flinging fecal matter at the wall to see what sticks?
Dopeler Effect*
Iced tea, meet monitor…
” I mean, if they are liberals, then their beliefs and actions should be “liberal”, right? Or otherwise, they wouldn’t BE liberals. They’d be whatever their actions were representative of, right?”
Conservatives represent freedom and money and puppies apple pie a la mode and everything else that is good in the world, including “true” liberalism. Liberalism is everything bad, including unpopular conservatives like Nixon and Hitler.
All things have an essential form that has no connection to their names or conventional meanings. This can only be understood esoterically, by him and the other “serious thinkers.”
Come to think of it, he’s kind of like an idiot Platonist.
“Or just flinging fecal matter at the wall to see what sticks?”
That would depend on the f(R)iction.
But I made the conscious effort not to go fishing for convenient fascist movements
Ironic, given that this vehicle is soon to be rechristened the Jonah in honour of his book.
Slightly OT, but the late unlamented Flashman began his career in the 11th Hussars, the ‘Cherry Pickers’.
Several of NR’s best contributors know a great deal about this stuff,
Rule #1
After having written and published a scholarly article (bear with me) and defending said work in a public forum (seminar or teh internets), refer those who ask difficult/you don’t understand questions to people who may know more than you do on the topic. This rule is sure to make you look like a genius, especially to scholarly types who will think that you have thoroughly researched your topic and have thought about it a great deal.
What? They didn’t teach you that in grad school too?
When will the Conservative Fascism and Liberal Fascism Sucks blogs be up and running?
To Smut Clyde: May I please bear your children, even if doing so requires a painful and potentially life-threatening series of gender-reassignment and womb-implacement operations?
Anyone — and by “anyone,” I mean ANY-fricking-ONE — who can work Sir Harry Flashman into an already excellent, LOL-inducing post, is truly doing the Lord’s work here on earth.
And I was sad to see that Fraser died the other day, to.
For a more nuanced take on why Meester Escuremierda is an absolute disgrace, please see Richard Rorty, Giorgio Agamben, Michel Foucalt and Hardt and Negri, who touch on this subject extensively.
Can I have a book deal now?
My mom hates Hillary Clinton too!
…several of NR’s best contributors know a great deal about this stuff…
Wonder how many have bit their tongues off, restraining teh laughter?
Indeed, Fraser is a loss for anyone who reads [i don’t think i have ever actually SAID indeed, I’ve only written it]
But not unmourned!
http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/
The liberal fondness for a supreme court that consults foreign laws is inherently undemocratic and illiberal. It’s investment in the UN, Davos and other transnational elite institutions smacks of an (HG) Wellsian contempt for localism, sovereignty and democracy.
Now ignoring the ridiculous claims that looking to other countries for precedent, when dealing with issues of law, international or otherwise, because doing so is “undemocratic and illiberal”…because of course it is neither…THIS is a discussion we should as a nation have.
Is the post-nation-state world one where we want to go for a state of anarchy, à la Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome? Or do we want to have a global, transnational structure akin to Rodenberry’s Federation? Or do we look to DIck Cheney and George Orwell for inspiration, and opt instead for a world of heavily militarized, totalitarian mega-states, perpetually at war and intellectually impoverished?
The merits of globalization as opposed to its alternatives should be discussed. And if we choose globalism, as I think we should, it being the lesser of the three evils, then it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the exact mechanisms and processes to be used for the integration. Globalism is by definition opposed to localism, and any country that becomes more globalized of necessity loses some of its sovereignty. The difference between us liberals and the right on this issue is that we aren’t so afraid of giving up a little sovereignty and maybe learning some conversational Spanish, that we feel the need to pee our pants and hide under the bed.
What I suspect however, is that Der Pantlöd’s crapulous opus was meant to, among other things, plant a poison pill against globalism and intellectualism generally. Confuse the issue. Because we all know how much the wingnuts love them some totalitarian dystopia, and the more heavily militarized the better for their crony friends. The only question then would be is Jonah knowingly planting the pill, or is he too stupid to even see it?
“That would depend on the f(R)iction.”
I have no doubt of the Duke of Dung’s ability.
Man, he just doesn’t fucking care, does he? That last paragraph, he doesn’t even bother to back any of his assertions up nor explain it beyond “Whiff! Whaff! So sayeth Jonah, so mote it be!” He just ignores actual reality. Any criticism is brushed aside with a cry of “Sniff, if you weren’t such a liberal jerk you wouldn’t be too stupid to understand what I really meant, not just what I wrote.”
You think he knows? You think he’s aware of how wrong he is and how big a douche he’s being about it? You think he cares? And as many others have noted, the response from “sensible conservatives” to the Pantload’s grating of history, political theory, logic, reason, common sense and common decency has been…well, have you ever seen one of these guys criticize another for anything except being a screamingly obnoxious right-wing dingbat completely removed from both reality and human decency? That’s right, no you haven’t.
Man. I am depressed now.
work Sir Harry Flashman into a… post
All that’s required is an ability to get side-tracked while looking up ‘cherry-picker’ on Google Image, though unmitigated gall also helps. Normally I try to mitigate my gall.
I meant foucault, the cheetos are getting to my head…
If you mitigate your gall, does your bile turn a pleasant shade of blue?
Or are we discussing mitigating gaul, in which case I think we should get caeser into the conversation.
Because an unmitigated gaul might lead to unpleasantness on the frontier. Kind of like an unruly Iraq….
mikey
And all of this so he could get his Hillary hate-on. Y’all think Jonah’s nursing one of those passive-agressive “nice guy” crushes on Hillary? He thought Bill was a big ol’ jerk and when the whole Monica thing went down he knew Hillary would come running to his doughy arms and his mom said she’d introduced him because, come on, what the fuck does Jonah know, ya know? Of course, Lucianne could give a shit and Jonah thinks “But I’m such a nice guy, yet Hillary spuns me” and this is the wingnut welfare version of those “American women suck” websites. I mean, really. How the fuck do you be that wrong and that obnoxious about it and not live in fear on constant boots to the testicles everytime you leave your apartment?
It’s easier to enjoy life when you feel you didn’t let people get away with b.s. when you had the chance.
funny, that’s how I feel too, which is why I wholeheartedly support the ongoing skewering of the BS that is your “book.”
When Caesar divided Gaul into three parts (on account of the Gauls attacking the ditches with arrows), Mitigated Gaul was the smallest section in the middle. Basically it was a buffer state between Inner Gaul and Outer Gaul, just a brief pause, and soon it became known as a Caesura. I hope this helps.
Otherwise there is no use for the word ‘caesura’ in the English language, except perhaps to rhyme with Bravura.
Basically it was a buffer state between Inner Gaul and Outer Gaul, just a brief pause, and soon it became known as a Caesura.
The Caesurian section, though necessary, was a mixed blessing.
Conservatives believe the Constitution is “quaint” and “outdated” and should be ignored. That’s better?
What is he talking about here? Treaties? Those are the highest law of the land equal to the Constitution, that’s what it says anyway…
The liberal fondness for a supreme court that consults foreign laws is inherently undemocratic and illiberal.
I smell a set-up for an ill-reasoned argument that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to us and the US and its officials and citizens aren’t subject to the International War Crimes Court.
Jonah possesses the incredible ability to implicitly redefine the same term multiple times within the span of a single sentence.
It should be clear at this point that he’s just throwing words together and hoping they make sense.
RandomObserver: Most of the people who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence were Englishmen. It is therefore the work of foreign infiltrators of this great land and must be opposed at every step. We must instead turn to the knowledge, grace and leadership of our nativist brothers and sisters, who have, through no contact with the outside world, deduced a means of government that surely has no predecessors in the world.
Right-wing neoconservative autocracy.
Indeed, this is central to my point.
It should be clear at this point that he’s just throwing words together and hoping they make sense.
And we’re back to “banged out by howler monkeys” once again.
a supreme court that consults foreign laws
I assume this would be a reference to Anthony Kennedy, who likes to read foreign laws and who sometimes, when he’s feeling very inherently undemocratic, illiberal, and naughty, cites them.
Speak to me of your foreign laws
The Bible: 100% American made.
G.M.F. is dead?
Well, fuck.
I’m not a fan of sequels but I always hoped he’d crank out The Pyrates, Part the Second.
This post drew snot.
It’s my highest compliment to a funny.
He will only brush off our ridicule with his privileged, patronage paradigm, and a huge does of Prep-H, his paradigm and ass being in the same place.
Resistance is futile, unless someone can come up with a better way to hurt him non-physically than not buying his book.
Believe me, I’ve tried.
There’s only Bible that’s American-made.
Ask Mitt Romney about that.
Imagine a hypothetical situation where Country A is engaged in a dispute with Country B, and imposes a trade ban. Imagine further, that Country A then insists that its laws enforcing this ban should also be obeyed by countries C, D, …Z. Would this count as showing a quasi-fascist “contempt for localism, sovereignty and democracy”?
Apologies if the hypothetical situation is too implausible.
John O: Accuse him of tax fraud?
Man, I love all you guys. I’m dying here.
I’m thinking a website akin to the LOLCats Bible: LOADkats. A LOLcatization of all things DoughBlob.
A demonstration follows…
Becomes…
Patkin:
You can accuse anyone of tax fraud, because the Code is purposefully illegible, and there is not doubt Jonah is too stupid to do his taxes himself, so doesn’t, so I’m afraid we’re screwed on both fronts for that suggestion. Good effort, though.
We’d have to have The Man on our side, and since Jonah’s mommy *is* The Man, we have to think of something else.
Tips for Jonah as the book tour unfolds:
I saw him on Joe S.’s show the other night, and it is simply hard to imagine wanting to punch someone else as badly.
And I’m highly non-violent. An unqualified success at repressing that particular urge.
Sure hope I never have to meet ol’ Jonah the Whale.
Sorry, it was Tucker’s show.
I got all mixed up over who I wanted to (theoretically, hypothetically, literary-license-ly, don’t want to be sued kind of way) punch in the nose for a bleeder, knock-down, and limp-off.
Basically it was a buffer state between Inner Gaul and Outer Gaul, just a brief pause, and soon it became known as a Caesura.
The Caesurian section, though necessary, was a mixed blessing.
Too bad about Caesura.
Sometimes you have to just take life as it comes. What will be will be. Who can know what will come to pass? The future’s not ours to see.
Que Caesura,Caesura
Non-violent? What are you, some kind of liberal fascist?
which is why, today, we call these German fascists ‘the Izzies.’
Low blow reading text and applying logic. What are you some kind of Na- uh Fa- um, help me out here; I’m looking for a word that means something.
Oh for jayzus sake, change GOLDBERG to GOLDBERGER, and make BERGER a different color. Hell, throw in the U if you need to.
dBa,
No, I don’t think so. Maybe if you ask Jonah. Mostly I’m kinda *blush* lib-leaning. I just want everyone to leave everybody else the fuck alone.
It just doesn’t seem we can.
I’ll get violent when I have to. But only then.
“which is why, today, we call these German fascists ‘the Izzies.’”
Well, the men are called ‘Izzies,’ but the women who belonged are known as teh ‘Harriets.’
Bubba:
But we’re in post-modern post-industrial America now! No words have meaning. Included these ones.
Fleeb zobble gork gork nully hoosegow.
I smell a set-up for an ill-reasoned argument that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to us and the US and its officials and citizens aren’t subject to the International War Crimes Court.
Actually, unless I miss my guess he’s going to the well-worn talking point about the death penalty.
The idea is, Stephen Breyer is a dirty damn hippie because when he is required to consider “evolving standards of decency” he examines not just the opinions of fucking bloodthirsty hillbillies in Montana, but those produced in other civilized nations. The conservative wing of the court turns around and says, “Oh yeah? What about Zimbabwe they’re ZOMG blackfascists who kill people QED we should execute the mentally retarded and little kids.”
From Tom’s e-mail exchange with Doughy over at If I Ran the Zoo…
“wow this is silly. If you take spencer ackerman and sadly no remoyely seriously, you’re a fool.”
Remoyely, people!
See how the Mighty Load rises above the fascist restraints of capitalization and spelling!
All hail the Dough Load! May his yeast never grow tired!
Or as he might say:
orgÅlbe berEuÞ p-tang, p-tang! µ!
“No, I don’t think so. Maybe if you ask Jonah. Mostly I’m kinda *blush* lib-leaning. I just want everyone to leave everybody else the fuck alone.”
I hoped you knew I was being facetious. I tend to Jonah everything up late on Saturdays.
It should be clear at this point that he’s just throwing words together and hoping they make sense.
And we’re back to “banged out by howler monkeys” once again.
He printed out seventeen months of NRO onto magnetic sheets, cut the words apart, and flung handfuls at his mom’s fridge.
Humour break!
fucking hilarious. enjoy!
Please.
Jonah’s “research” was whatever he read on that cereal box in front of him each morning: “NeoCon Nut Crunch”.
Jonah possesses the incredible ability to implicitly redefine the same term multiple times within the span of a single sentence.
Thus, we find fault with an American education system that values quantity over quality.
“Hm, I need 2000 words to describe the neo-liberal movement. Maybe if I throw a few extra ‘verys’ in there, no one will notice.”
He’s banking on the Dopeler Effect*
* The tendency of stupid ideas to appear more intelligent as they approach the observer at a rapid velocity.
K, that’s going in the “Quotes I need to rip off” folder.
This always dissolves to politics. The real fascist/racist is John McCain after his performance in the debate. John McCain was overtly racist in the SC debate, read it here:
John McCain’s racism in SC debate
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between” Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
Thing is, the audience this stuff is intended for? The material doesn’t have to be any better than this.
Listen. I think, if we play our cards right, and get Jonah’s book before the public along with the craven silence and/or the disgusting enthusiastic support of the right wing, “Liberal Fascism” could be an important moment in exposing the house of dogshit that the conservative movement has built.
We should all be thinking about how to use this.
Oh, it won’t make a blind bit of difference Hoosier. Everyone who has been paying attention knows the neocons are frauds. The only people who havn’t realised it yet are those who have something to gain by not realising it, and people who are just oblivious to politics.
Sad to say, but only the coming economic depression will get the lesson learnt. It is one thing to watch the bombs fall on TeeVee, and quite another to get that foreclosure notice through the letter-box.
The Pantload’s sad little book is just too many degrees removed from real life for most people to give a damn, one way or another. What’s a little slander compared with the rest of what the neo-cons have done?
The book is by and for stupid people.
Anyone who reads it and doesn’t realize how stupid it is would need hours and hours of intense tutoring in basic reasoning to be helped at all.
Is there any possibility that Albert Broccoli’s name in the poster could be changed to Albert Brusselsprout?
“Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.”
Frankly, I’m a little suspicious of anybody with two first names; and I work with enough physicians to know that many of them have gone through their entire lives as complete dickheads.
Unless, of course, he’s a Doctor of Philosophy. Then, maybe, we can talk. Or better yet, email me: idontcare@fuckoff.net
At last something I can agree with … pretty well answers the question of whether to ignore or ridicule Lil’ Pantload.
Has anyone noticed that, even though he’s known as Doughbob, he’s actually a lot like Patrick? Pink and pudgy with very little in the way of brains. Plus they both live under a rock.
I think we can use this ridiculous screed. It’s a lot more blatantly stupid and insulting than the usual conservative diarrhea.
I know a lot of people who were more or less non-political in 2002 and 2003 who have become as disgusted and involved as I am. And it’s largely because of how over-the-top conservatives have become. My brother’s epiphany came about when he had to share an office with a guy who listened to Sean Hannity. My best friend became a trucker and started listening to the radio a lot, and now he’s always calling me and saying stuff like, Did you hear what Glenn Beck said!?!?!?!?
Get it out there. I’m going to see how cheap I can get it on Amazon because I want to read it before I go any further, to deflect all that “you haven’t even read it” screeching from people who also haven’t read it.
If anyone has an advance copy they are done with, let me know. We could have a little wingnut lending library and pass it around.
DANCE!! INTO THE FIRE!!
<dOOT dOOT!!>
A FATAL KISS
IS ALL WE NEED!!
<dOOT dOOT>
90% of the audience this is intended for won’t even read the book. They may buy the book because “It’ll make them dang libruls mad,” but they’ll wait until someone else reads out the important bits and tells them what they think about it and that will be what the schlub with the $30.00 paper weight will think. It will be a secular version of the Bible as used by your friendly neighborhood Talevangical.
Of course, another 9% will try to read the book and be defeated by J-Load’s headache-inducing writing style and 1% will read the book all the way through.
BUT, maybe 1% of that 10% would publicly admit that the book is a mile high pile of shit because they don’t want to be seen as disloyal to the cause.
One of the things I liked about the previews of the book at S,N! was that the “ideas” in the meaty tome had to stand on their own. Soon JLoad’s defense of the book will focus all of the attention on what a stupid fuck he is, when people should be looking at the culture that breeds and nurtures stupid fucks. [Insert joke about Lucianne’s womb, if you must.]
Of course, Johan making an arse of himself on CSpan2 great because anything that allows those fools to embarrass themselves before an audience is a good thing.
Hoosier, about the only way I can see using this is to extend the metaphor to include Americans who aren’t liberal.
You know, how like Fudgie extended “liberal” to include Richard Nixon…
You piss off enough people in, well, the states near the Hoosier state and suddenly there’s an awakening.
Is there one, just one, specific living example of a ilberal person who one could show was fascist, presented in the book?
Or would that, if unprovable, be slander?
I realize it would just become fodder for his “I AM SRIUS THNKR” claims, but I would like to see JoGo up against a real historian in some sort of televised discussion, moderated by a smart journalist. First question to JoGo: “Please give us a definition of ‘fascism.'”
“But I made the conscious effort not to go fishing for convenient fascist movements most readers had never heard of.”
Isn’t this an example of a Mobius Sentence?
Nobody duhhhhhs it better
Can’t even finish the rest
Nobody packs a pantleg quite the way you do
Doughload you’re the best
When you were young
and you wrote a moronic book
I wanted to say live and let load
(you know I did, you know I did, you know I did)
but now that winger welfare world
in which you live in
makes me give in and cry…
so won’t you please die?
There actually could have been a good book here about the radicalism of fascism. I’m thinking of serious works like Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Klaus Theweleit’s Male Fantasies, or Sheila Kaplan’s Reproductions of Banality. But Jonah wasn’t trying to write a serious book, was he?
I’ve often thought one of the objectively fascist aspects of the Ron Paul campaign is the missionary zeal of his followers. I got buttonholed in a bar by one of those deadbeats on Friday.
Holy Christ. Pantload on C-Span 2 right now. 1/9 Heritage Foundation appearance. He’s even worse in person. I mean, he’s just totally making shit up and he’s taking gulps of water mid-sentence. It’s like the head of some College Repuglican rhetoric debate team who throws some big important-sounding words into his semi-slangy mix of like totally toolish language, dude. Everything out of his mouth is idiotic. He’s idiotic to behold. It’s painful to watch and hear. I do almost feel sorry for him. I’m embarrassed for him, and for my eyeballs. I mean, it is stupid that must be seen to be believed.
Will surf, now that the load of pant is nigh.
(flat on his belly in the pit’s much mire,
With elbows wide, fists clenched to prop his chin. heh indeed.)
But Jonah wasn’t trying to write a serious book, was he?
That’s always the question, isn’t it? It always comes down to “are they evil, or just stupid?”
It varies with the wingnut, of course, but Jonah, as a spoiled brat, is probably genuinely that stupid. But then how could one be so hopelessly clueless has to think a book with a smiley-face Hitler cover would be Teh Serious?
Perhaps Doubleday thought it was a joke, but never told Jonah in order not to hurt his widdle feelings.
Shhhh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet. I’m having an e-mail debate with Jonah Goldstein;
******************************
Dear Mr. Goldberg,
Thank you for your willingness to engage in this
discussion. I greatly appreciate it. Since you have
invited careful analysis of your work by liberal
critics, I hope that we can continue? I do hope you
notice that I am attempting to maintain a polite,
honest debate.
But the terms of our discussion have become a bit
fuzzy. Let’s clarify:
Step one; You deny that fascism is “anti-liberal”,
calling this a canard.
“… the omnipresent canard that I must be wrong
because of fascism’s “overwhelming anti-liberalism.”
Neiwert is again displaying either his ignorance or
his dishonesty”
Step two: You identify contemporary American
liberalism as not matching the “Manchester” liberalism
of Hitler’s day but instead assert that it is
analagous with
“…progressivism or socialism… the correct label
for American liberalism…”
Step three:
Providing copious quotes from “Mein Kampf”, I point
out that according to the identification of liberalism
which you have chosen, Hitler was intensely and
profoundly anti-liberal.
Step four:
You say no, Hitler was just talking about the
“November criminals”.
Step five:
I point out that Hitler was NOT talking about the
“November criminals” but his time in Vienna prior to
World War One. Furthermore, that when Hitler objects
to socialist and progressives, he specifically
identifies them in “Mein Kampf” with his omnipresent
Jewish boogeyman.
Step six:
You reply that “Mein Kampf” was a work of propaganda
which should not be taken as an accurate
representation of Hilter’s true beliefs or feelings
about liberals, socialists or progressives.
Step seven:
I reply that the intense beliefs and feelings about
liberals, socialists and progressives which Hitler
revealed in “Mein Kampf” are confirmed in spades as
soon as Hitler is in a position of power.
Step eight:
Your reply as follows, with my words in parentheses.
“I don’t dispute that.”
(OK, so now you admit that Hitler DID despise the very
liberals which you have identified as analagous to
American liberals, ie socialists and
progressives..which was the exact point that David
Neiwert initially made and you denied.)
“He was a radical anti-semite who despised the
center-left moderates for their devotion to democracy
and for their failure to be radical enough. ”
(OK, but you’re changing the subject. Who cares what
he thought about center-left moderates? It was you,
not Davide Neiwert, who chose to define American
liberals as analagous to the socialists and
progressive of Hitler’s youth.)
“I didn’t misquote or take anything out of context.”
(Not exactly, no. What you DID do was to confuse the
issue about exactly who Hitler hated, whether this was
done intentionally or unintentionally.)
“The liberalism in the refrain about Hitler being
anti-liberal **is*** the liberalism of the sort I
referred to. ”
(But WHICH liberalism is ‘the sort you referred to’?
Since your antecedent is unclear, I don’t know how to
reply.)
“That he was more radical than the mainstream parties
and hated them for all sorts of reasons is beyond
dispute.”
(Once again, you admit that Hitler hated “the
mainstream parties”— once again the antecedent is
unclear— but you assert that this hatred is based
upon “all sorts of reasons”. You don’t voice
disagreement with any of the reasons which Hitler
himself copiously lists in “Mein Kampf”, and yet you
fail to provide any other reasons.)
“But that is not relevant to the bit about fascism
being anti-liberal.”
(So, let’s recap: In step one, you denied Hitler’s
hatred of liberals, as defined by you in step two. In
step eight, you finally admit that Hitler DID hate
liberals, as defined by you in step two.
But now you attempt to subtly change the debate from
its initial topic: “DID Hitler hate liberals, as
asserted by David Neiwert and denied by Jonah
Goldberg?”
Now the subject of discussion is alleged to be: “WHY
did Hitler hate liberals?” (“all sorts of reasons”
although you don’t specify what they are.)
Is this an accurate account of where we are now? If
not, please correct me.
Thank you,
(Name withheld)
Oops! Shit That’s Jonah GOLDBERG of course, not Jonah Goldstein as I accidentally typed.
This looks like a deliberately anti-semitic error, but it was only due to my nervousness. I should have checked my post more carefully before I pressed the button.
Sincere apologies to Jonah Goldberg and everyone else.
If the proprietors of Sadly No would be so kind, I’d like to ask them to remove my incorrect previous posting and replace it with a corrected one.
Once again, sorry. I am not an anti-semite and I am very embarrassed about the prospect of being mistake for one.
Shhhh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet. I’m having an e-mail debate with Jonah Goldberg:
******************************
Dear Mr. Goldberg,
Thank you for your willingness to engage in this
discussion. I greatly appreciate it. Since you have
invited careful analysis of your work by liberal
critics, I hope that we can continue? I do hope you
notice that I am attempting to maintain a polite,
honest debate.
But the terms of our discussion have become a bit
fuzzy. Let’s clarify:
Step one; You deny that fascism is “anti-liberal”,
calling this a canard.
“… the omnipresent canard that I must be wrong
because of fascism’s “overwhelming anti-liberalism.”
Neiwert is again displaying either his ignorance or
his dishonesty”
Step two: You identify contemporary American
liberalism as not matching the “Manchester” liberalism
of Hitler’s day but instead assert that it is
analagous with
“…progressivism or socialism… the correct label
for American liberalism…”
Step three:
Providing copious quotes from “Mein Kampf”, I point
out that according to the identification of liberalism
which you have chosen, Hitler was intensely and
profoundly anti-liberal.
Step four:
You say no, Hitler was just talking about the
“November criminals”.
Step five:
I point out that Hitler was NOT talking about the
“November criminals” but his time in Vienna prior to
World War One. Furthermore, that when Hitler objects
to socialist and progressives, he specifically
identifies them in “Mein Kampf” with his omnipresent
Jewish boogeyman.
Step six:
You reply that “Mein Kampf” was a work of propaganda
which should not be taken as an accurate
representation of Hilter’s true beliefs or feelings
about liberals, socialists or progressives.
Step seven:
I reply that the intense beliefs and feelings about
liberals, socialists and progressives which Hitler
revealed in “Mein Kampf” are confirmed in spades as
soon as Hitler is in a position of power.
Step eight:
Your reply as follows, with my words in parentheses.
“I don’t dispute that.”
(OK, so now you admit that Hitler DID despise the very
liberals which you have identified as analagous to
American liberals, ie socialists and
progressives..which was the exact point that David
Neiwert initially made and you denied.)
“He was a radical anti-semite who despised the
center-left moderates for their devotion to democracy
and for their failure to be radical enough. ”
(OK, but you’re changing the subject. Who cares what
he thought about center-left moderates? It was you,
not Davide Neiwert, who chose to define American
liberals as analagous to the socialists and
progressive of Hitler’s youth.)
“I didn’t misquote or take anything out of context.”
(Not exactly, no. What you DID do was to confuse the
issue about exactly who Hitler hated, whether this was
done intentionally or unintentionally.)
“The liberalism in the refrain about Hitler being
anti-liberal **is*** the liberalism of the sort I
referred to. ”
(But WHICH liberalism is ‘the sort you referred to’?
Since your antecedent is unclear, I don’t know how to
reply.)
“That he was more radical than the mainstream parties
and hated them for all sorts of reasons is beyond
dispute.”
(Once again, you admit that Hitler hated “the
mainstream parties”— once again the antecedent is
unclear— but you assert that this hatred is based
upon “all sorts of reasons”. You don’t voice
disagreement with any of the reasons which Hitler
himself copiously lists in “Mein Kampf”, and yet you
fail to provide any other reasons.)
“But that is not relevant to the bit about fascism
being anti-liberal.”
(So, let’s recap: In step one, you denied Hitler’s
hatred of liberals, as defined by you in step two. In
step eight, you finally admit that Hitler DID hate
liberals, as defined by you in step two.
But now you attempt to subtly change the debate from
its initial topic: “DID Hitler hate liberals, as
asserted by David Neiwert and denied by Jonah
Goldberg?”
Now the subject of discussion is alleged to be: “WHY
did Hitler hate liberals?” (“all sorts of reasons”
although you don’t specify what they are.)
Is this an accurate account of where we are now? If
not, please correct me.
Thank you,
(Name withheld)
Wait, so some of Jonah’s reference material was apparently fiction? Hilarious.
W.P.E. Please oh please get him to define fascism. The TYPE he’s comparinf teh liberal menace too. I’m dying to hear what his answer is.
Oh,and could he fucking make a point and then stick with it? Jesus.
Oh Christ, that would be”comparing teh liberal menace to.” geesh
Jonah thinks most of his readers have never heard of the fascist movement in Britain? Pretty ignorant crowd, if you ask me.
I am taking on the no doubt life altering task of chronicling things that are smarter than Jonah Goldberg…
So far I have come up with Athena, Maxine and Dexter (my three cats) and a baby gate.
rob – If I may add to your list:
…things I have seen circling my toilet bowl….
No link provided (or desired, I would imagine).
Well …. he isnt called the Doughy Pantload for nothing …
Did he really say, even for a second “Hitler didn’t mean it?”
Yeah, that happens to me all of the time. One minute I’m just fooling around, next minute, several million people have been kidnapped/tortured/murdered and half of Europe is in ruins.
Curse my impetuous nature!
WHAT a dickscab.
W.P.E. Please oh please get him to define fascism.
I’d be surprised and delighted if my discussion with Goldberg ever reaches that point. It took multiple e-mails just to pin him down on his definition of “liberal”.
The next step is to pin him down on exactly WHY did Hitler hate socialists and progressives?
He’s not a smart debater. He reminds of kind of arguments I used to get from my kids:
“Sally, did you clean up your room?”
“Yes, of course I did.”
“Are you sure you cleaned up your room?”
“Yes, of course I did.”
“Hmmmm… Well then, how come I’m looking at your room right now and, guess what? It’s a great big mess?”
“Well, why should I have to clean up MY room? You never make JIMMY clean up HIS room.”
“We’re not talking about Jimmy’s room. We’re talking about your room.”
“That’s because you love Jimmy more than me. YOU HATE ME! AND I HATE YOU TOO! SO LEAVE ME ALONE!”
Etc. etc. until parent is so frazzled that original argument about cleaning up room is totally forgotten…
Dan Someone said,
January 13, 2008 at 16:21
I realize it would just become fodder for his “I AM SRIUS THNKR” claims, but I would like to see JoGo up against a real historian in some sort of televised discussion
I’d settle for a fifth grader with access to Google.
Jeff Foxworthy could moderate.
Did he really say, even for a second “Hitler didn’t mean it?”
Here is exactly what Jonah Goldberg e-mailed me:
“Sir, you’re really not up to speed on this stuff. First, the fact that he disparaged manchester liberalism, doesn’t mean he didn’t have contempt for hostility for competitors. Mein Kampf is a profoundly self-serving propaganda document (which I have read). Of course he’s going to ridicule the doctrines and integrity of his competitors to justify the Nazi REVOLUTION (there are no conservative revolutions). By way of illustration, leftwing radicals in the United States hated laissez faire liberalism and Democratic Party moderates. There’s no contradiction here. Does the word “liberalism” appear in any of these quotes you sent? Not that I can see. Moreover, I was referring to what academics MEAN and what Fascists MEANT by “anti-liberalism.”
I think we’re seeing something of a pattern here:
IF [a noted fascist] says something positive about [something ‘liberal’], THEN [a noted fascist] is objectively liberal.
IF [a noted fascist] says something negative about [something ‘liberal’], THEN [a noted fascist] is ‘hostile to competitors.’
This dovetails quite elegantly with the following formulation:
IF [a given text] supports Jonah’s argument, THEN Jonah relies on [a given text].
IF [a given text] contradicts Jonah’s argument, THEN Jonah insists that [a given text] ‘really means’ something different from what it says.
there are no conservative revolutions
This would obviously be fodder for a whole other debate with Goldberg, but if you read Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctine”, one of her major theses is that anywhere in the world where the policies of the Chicago School of Economics have been implemented, it has always been imposed by force; never in one single instance have those policies ever been publicly advocated by a politicians and freely chosen in democratic elections.
Since the policies of the Chicago School of Economics are so closely identified with conservatiism, it would seem that the term “conservative revolution” would be entirely appropriate.
At least I would say so.
But what do I know? I’m just a liberal fascist?
Also, where Jonah says the following:
He’s forgetting the passage in his own book where he identifies the American Revolution as “essentially conservative.”
The figure on the cover…on the cover of “Sex and Typography” – a Robert Brownjown retrospective.
My word!
A discussion forum for my landmark piece!
Please visit me frequently for updates on my wanderings through this modern age.
Regards,
Walter Benjamin
Silly Gavin!
The GOOD revoltuions are conservative.
The BAD revolutions are liberal/fascist/communist, which are all synonyms.
Everything clear now?
He’s banking on the Dopeler Effect*
* The tendency of stupid ideas to appear more intelligent as they approach the observer at a rapid velocity.
Not to be confused with Red Shift, the tendency of a fascist to appear as a liberal when the observer really, really, really wants it to be so.
Oh, and there was no conservative revolutionary movement in Nicaragua.
Jonah Goldberg, January 13, 2008:
Jonah Goldberg, January 28, 2000:
Jillian said,
January 13, 2008 at 4:48
Oswald Mosley?
He does know that Mosley’s held in fairly high regard by the BNP, doesn’t he?
And he knows that BNP aren’t even remotely “liberal”, yes?
Wait, what am I saying. This is Jonah Goldberg. Of course he doesn’t know this.
I suspect that he wants to discuss Mosley’s original transition from Tory to Labour MP in the 1920s (as if this might prove something about Jonah’s thesis) and from there to New Party leader in 1931-32 (as further link in some chain of proof about ideological association).
Does Jonah realize that Diana was Mosley’s second wife and that the Mitfords as a family were hardly uniformly admirers of fascism? Diana’s main issues were supporting the Apartheid regime in South Africa after WWII and opposing immigration into the UK, both positions admired by the BNP. She had a LOT of influence on Mosley’s post-war thinking, to his detrement.
So what’s Jonah know about any of this? Not much, clearly.
Jonah Goldberg :
Mein Kampf is a profoundly self-serving propaganda document (which I have read).
No surprise there…
No conservative revolutions? So Augusto Pinochet was a liberal? As was Francisco Franco? Well, shut my mouth.
As the philosopher Santayana said, “Those who learn from a Pantload are condemned to repeat him.” Or was that The Editors?
Yeah, I noticed that too, actor212.
Funny how Hitler’s own words from “Mein Kampf” are ignored as profoundly self-serving propaganda, while the word “socialist” in the party name is treated as a really big deal.
Actually, the name is an interesting story, too.
According to Wikipedia:
In an attempt to make the party more broadly appealing to larger segments of the population, the DAP [“German Workers’ Party”] was renamed on February 24, 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The name was borrowed from a different Austrian party active at the time (Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei, German National Socialist Workers’ Party), although Hitler earlier suggested the party to be renamed the “Social Revolutionary Party”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers'_Party
Oops, bad link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers'_Party
One more try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers_Party
Good goddamn, Jonah is a Turtledove fanboy! Sweet Georgia Brown, does that explain a whole lot!
Alternate history is pretty lousy with the trekkie wing of the far right for some weird reason. I say this with shame as someone more into it than he should be. I am, or at least was, also a Turtledove fanboy. But then again, I was seventeen at the time, so take that with a grain of salt.
Shitfinger! That’s fucking hilarious!
Shiit-fingerr. The man with the shiitty touch.
This guy must look at the world through his nipples.
Worst Pres.Evar: The argument goes more like this in our house:
1. Did you clean your room?
2. Yes
3. Under the bed?
4. Waaa! You didn’t say under the bed!
5…..
6. Is your room clean NOW?
7. Yes
8. Did you put your stuff away or shove it all in the closet?
9. Waaaaa! You’re so MEAN! Waaaa!
No conservative revolutions? So Augusto Pinochet was a liberal? As was Francisco Franco? Well, shut my mouth.
Clearly they weren’t Burkean conservatives, intent on preserving the existing order; thus they were necessarily liberals, as the only remaining alternative. They may have been right-wing liberals — this only strengthens my argument.
They may well have used rhetoric about unifying society behind a common goal… yes, this would also make them fascist. But remember, there is no pejorative force to the world ‘fascist’. It is only a description.
As people have pointed out, Lincoln was a fascist. Martin Luther King was clearly a fascist, with his revivalist talk and his transformative dreams for the nation. J F Kennedy was a fascist. What of it? No-one should be insulted by these descriptions. Jonah could call you a fascist, and you would have no reason to take offense. You could call him a fascist, and he wouldn’t be insulted, though he would shake his head and smirk and point out that his Burkean Conservative membership makes that unpossible.
No conservative revolutions? So Augusto Pinochet was a liberal? As was Francisco Franco? Well, shut my mouth.
Pinochet and Franco were conservative reformers. Just ask Jonah:
and the Opinion Journal:
They saved democracy and free market from Communism. No small feat.
a supreme court that consults foreign laws is inherently undemocratic…
Why? Let’s see: we elect a President — a real President, not one who sneaks in thru fraud in a state run by his brother — and he appoints Supreme Court justices who actually read about what’s going on in the 94% of the world that isn’t the U.S.A., and who possibly use some of that information in their deliberations. Why is it “undemocratic” of them to do that? Is it because them furriners is EEEEEEVIL? Or just because they’re not Murkans, and any idea not originated by a Murkan is automatically wrong?
Actually, why am I even asking? We already know that Jonah just makes stuff up, including the definitions of every word he says. [Emily Litella voice]: Never mind.
This guy must look at the world through his nipples.
You’d think he’d have a broader view…
from Arky – Professional Peace Disturber :
Jonah likes his Constitutions like he likes his women. Dead, cold and inflexible.
Ouch!
So, the way we know what word to use against the most awful, stupidest, deceitful beings is whatever Jonah calls himself?
Maaaa! Billy just called me a Buerkean conservative!
Expect it in stores for 2012:
Liberal Burkean Conservativsm: The Secret History of the Progressive Left from Sojourner Truth to Trader Joe’s
by Jonah Goldberg
What about Roderick Spode and the Black Shorts? It would be a shame if Jonah forgot them.
Heil Spode!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderick_Spode
It’s even funnier if you can get your hands on the DVDs of the series; Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie are, IMO, the *perfect* Jeeves and Wooster.
What about the Brown Shorts?
Drb,
We’ve done Jonah to death!
The Irish fascists were the Blue Shirts! I have learned something new today.
Man, it’s like there’s not any shirt colors left. Even green shirts (Franco-Agrarian authoritarians, plus the “extras” in GI Joe). I don’t look good in plaid, plus it was probably used by some Scottish fascists anyway. Rainbows are frankly kind of dumb looking, and being “skins” isn’t a good option because it’s cold out. Red shirts, aside from their association with a fascist Mexican paramilitary organization, are the first members of the away team to get killed, letting you know that the planet is a dangerous one.
Gold Shirts in Mexico, Green Shirts in Brazil.
I don’t look good in plaid, plus it was probably used by some Scottish fascists anyway.
Oh yeah. I can see that working out well. “So you’re a Fascist, fighting for Scottish unity, committed to revive the noble traditions of the Scottish Nation — but are you a MacDonald Fascist, or one of those filthy Campbell Fascists?”
maybe we should cross-check his facts against the comic books, too.. perhaps there was a long-term discussion by mail in a fanzine letters column which provided the impetus for the Pantload