Posted on 07/24/2008 11:34:04 AM PDT by djsherin
Those who put a high value on words may recoil at the title of Jonah Goldberg's new book, "Liberal Fascism." As a result, they may refuse to read it, which will be their loss -- and a major loss.
Those who value substance over words, however, will find in this book a wealth of challenging insights, backed up by thorough research and brilliant analysis.
This is the sort of book that challenges the fundamental assumptions of its time -- and which, for that reason, is likely to be shunned rather than criticized.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
If America could regain its sanity it would be Thomas Sowell who would be bearing down on the coronation as America’s “first black President”, not the unaccomplished, class-warfare, affirmative action Marxist from Chicago.
bookmark
Ditto that. He’s a great and brilliant man.
One quote struck me:
“Only after Hitler and Mussolini disgraced themselves, mainly by their brutal military aggressions in the 1930s, did the left distance themselves from these international pariahs.”
Actually, there was one additional trigger required for the left to completely “disown” fascism. Anyone care to guess what that was?
Agree !!
Sowell for VP....
wouldn’t that be sweet !!
here, here. Ken Blackwell would be our governor, too!
Probably losing the war...
There was little in the way of the ideas of the left and the fascists that I had not read before; but there was a wealth of detail of which I was previously unaware.
For those that have never before seen that fascists and socialists, particularly commies, are but two sides of the same coin, I highly recommend this book. For those that have previously recognized this face, I still highly recommend this book.
Yeah... Operation Barbarossa. After Hitler signed non aggression pact with the USSR the Liberals all screamed for FDR to back down. But once they attacked Russia all the libs began screaming for America to attack Germany.
I don't understand one thing though. Nazi Germany and the USSR under Stalin were both leftists. They both believed the same things that the Demonrat liberals believe in, (they just keep some of it to themselves though.) What difference would it make for liberals if Stalin did lose?
Nope. The far left had a gushing love-fest with fascism after August 14, 1939, which affair ended suddenly on June 22, 1941.
They still love fascism, but they understood that they had to keep their heads down for a while or call it something else.
LOL, the invasion of Russia. There you go, sacred ground to any card carrying leftist.
Stalin was a Marxist. Hitler was merely a Socialist. Both on the Left, and if they were allied it seemed like a good thing to anyone who loved the Left. But when the fighting started, American Leftists had to choose sides — and they preferred the Marxist — the glory of the Bolshevik Revolution was central to the self-image of the Left (”I have seen the future — and it works”).
I also read the book and highly recommend it as well.
It would have made a huge difference. Stalin was the 'intellectual heir' of Marxism-Leninism which is the lodestone of liberals everywhere. The NYT was one of the principal cheerleaders for that murderous thug, btw.
Since the USSR was the 'birthplace' of socialism, it had to be defended from 'fascism', even though there isn't a dimes bit of difference between them.
L
Actually I heard from Chaim Ben Pesach that the NYT supported Hitler too. The guy who wrote the articles praising Hitler and Stalin won a Pulitzer prize for each article. Ironically the guy was a Jew
Hitler attacked the USSR, which the left loved even more than the Fascists.
WW2?
Well, the dimes worth of difference was that communists are INTERNATIONAL socialists, whereas facists are NATIONAL socialists (hence Nazi, which is short for National Socialist). International socialists export thier theology, but leave local governance in place, even if just as puppets. National socialists must absorb territory, and thereby dispell any fantasy that locals are allowed to have any say in thier own future.
The left wanted the mirage of self rule, while they envisioned themselves pulling the puppets strings (just as they do today ... little realizing that they too are merely puppets for an even greater master). When National Socialists threatened to dismantle the International Socialist beachhead, they chose to support the International Socialists because it was better for them in the long play.
bump
When I read Jonah’s recent book, I posted at FR that here was a young writer that had risen to the stellar ranks of Sowell and Kirk with a plain logical and honestly written book on the subject of Fascism. Others said, oh, Goldberg isn’t yet that strong is he?
Just buy it and read it and you also will be pleasently stunned as to its quality.
Hitler attacking the USSR, which was essentially the High Temple of Marxism.
I have read it. Extremely well researched and a very good read.
I second that motion and move it for the vote !
They do they call it liberalism !
I'd certainly vote for Sowell, but I'd prefer Walter Williams. He's quite a bit tougher.
ping for later.
That is an interesting contribution. We won't use it, mainly because both fascism and communism are dead and the new stuff hasn't yet been given its bourgeois names.
>>For those that have never before seen that fascists and socialists, particularly commies, are but two sides of the same coin, I highly recommend this book.
I had seen that from reading Hayek. See the 3rd quote on my FR profile page.
As you note, this book really, really gives a wealth of detail about it, that Hayek didn’t cover, since it was really a side comment in a book on another (very important!) topic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.