Jonah probably studied fascism more than you have.The verecundiam boat doesn't float.
And he doesn’t equate liberal/progressivism with fascism. He considers it a second cousin or so with certain family resemblances.
Nor does the pedantry boat.
Although the true meanings of liberalism and fascism are different it seems that modern day liberals (or progressives) are keen to adopting fascist like tactics. E.g federal economic control, propaganda (MSM) and silencing of opposition, (ACLU) etc... Read the Webster’s Dictionary meanings of both terms and then examine modern day liberalism. Both Jonah Goldberg and Michael Savage have been highlighting the link between modern liberalism and fascism.
“The whole liberalism is fascism carnard doesn’t inform debate, it just inflames emotions and rallies the faithful.”
The “canard” is the notion that conservatives are somehow fascists. And that is the great myth that Goldberg is puncturing. You should be happy about that.
As Goldberg points out, the “whole liberalism is fascism canard” was started by H.G. Wells, one of the most influential writers of the pre WWII era.
And please, let’s not get confused between classical liberalism and “modern” liberalism. The two are nearly opposites.
Get a clue, dude. You’re stinking up an otherwise good website.
I disagree.
If one defines fascism as the State controlling the actions of its citizens, then Liberalism and Fascism are the same phenomenon (just advanced to different levels).
[Anyway, as I pointed out in my first post, fascism and liberalism are inherently opposite.]
Political correctness looks, acts, and destroys others rights and opinons and is therefore facism. Note also, that political correctness and nazism are both grounded in socialism, the desire to get along at the cost of free thinking that the conservative mind rejects.
PC is facism, a wolf in sheeps clothing.
The whole liberalism is fascism carnard doesn't inform debate, it just inflames emotions and rallies the faithful.
is very well addressed by Goldberg in how he frames his overall arguement.
This isn't a short thematic book as is typically put out by a columnist. His NR-online editorship had me prepared for such as well. Instead, it is a major piece of scholarship framed in good, reasoned and readable rhetorical arguement and well worth the read.
I would say I was blown away by the caliber of the book. I find his columns readable but he has really steped up to a higher rung with this book.