Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism
The liberal blogosphere has already condemned Jonah Goldberg’s new book “Liberal Fascism” as a horrible piece of propaganda, distortions, etc. while they can’t have read it yet, since they can only buy the book next week.
Glenn and Helen Reynolds talked to Jonah Goldberg about the book and the controversy. You can listen to it here .
It’s a fascinating show. Definitely a book I’ll buy (and read).
Big fan of Jonah, can’t wait to read it!
"The liberal blogosphere has already condemned Jonah Goldberg’s new book “Liberal Fascism” as a horrible piece of propaganda, distortions, etc. while they can’t have read it yet, since they can only buy the book next week."
The excerpts they have looked through have logical holes that you can smuggle things through. It is pathetic, revisionist, uses the fallacy of the undistributed middle all the time and the petards he employs could be used to connect today’s right-wingers with the nazis. Just in the excerpts. The book is the epitome of Godwin and other cheap tricks, at least from what I have seen. If the rest of the book happens to be a fa-dabby-babulous collection of reason, fairness and intelligent arguments then color me surprised.
The man approvingly refers to an article which says that "it is an uncontested fact that homosexual conduct spreads disease,” that homosexuality is “biologically (and to varying degrees morally) equivalent to pedophilia, sado-masochism, bestiality and many other forms of deviant behavior."
Replace "homosexual" and "homosexuality" with Jewish and Jewishness, then let a left-wing author quote from an article that includes the above, modified article, without denouncing the above quote. What do you think would happen?
The man himself wouldn’t have a career if it wasn’t for his mother, and he has been royally trounced by the same people before.
I’ll refer to Jon Swift. http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/06/jonah-goldbergs-shining.html
No, I found another post showing that his latest secretion is a hollow dagger that doesn’t strike more at one side of the aisle than the other if you actually know and care what you are talking about - http://brewcitybrawler.typepad.com/brew_city_brawler/2007/12/journal-senti-1.html
Well, here’s a question for Jonah: what word would be correct to describe an FBI director who wanted to detain 12,000 Americans without charges upon suspicion of “disloyalty”… but was prevented from doing so by Liberal Fascist President Harry Truman?Would you call that person an “anti-fascist”?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22373671
I agree with Xel, Jonah is either very stupid piece of s… or super manipulative disgusting a…hole…
The Nazi’s killed all the Social Democrats and Communists. The means of production were held privately in Nazi Germany which made them capitalists. A few social programs does not make a a socialist. It makes one a politician trying to get get or keep support. They also banned labor unions. That isn’t very Socialist. Its sounds Republican.
Because they found efficient methods of murder and burning of the bodies did not make them environmentalists either. They used mass transportation to fill death camps too.
Do you think if they made Jews drive their own cars to Auschwitz they would have been Libertarians?
I think it is time for someone (Zel ?) to write a book :
"Conservative Communism: The Secret History
of the American Right from Marx to Mission Accomplished"
“The excerpts they have looked through have logical holes that you can smuggle things through. It is pathetic, revisionist, uses the fallacy of the undistributed middle all the time and the petards he employs could be used to connect today’s right-wingers with the nazis. Just in the excerpts. The book is the epitome of Godwin and other cheap tricks, at least from what I have seen.”
It doesn’t sound much different from the bulk of modern popular political writing from right or left.
Though people in the US at least get the chance to buy the right wing bilge, in most of Europe we only get the mindless crap from the left……
All too true.
"It doesn’t sound much different from the bulk of modern popular political writing from right or left."
No, Goldberg is most definitely not above the fray or the cluster of bloviators and culture warriors that insist on their superiority. Which I tend to the net - it carries a deluge of problems as well but in a gratis environment the writers have a far higher incentive to uphold credibility, get respect from the respected (for links etc.) and at least try to keep a jour with what is going on.
"Though people in the US at least get the chance to buy the right wing bilge, in most of Europe we only get the mindless crap from the left……"
You want the sewage to be balanced? One of Sweden’s favorite comedians have said that the top priority is to achieve consistent, stable and healthy bowel movements, so you may have a point.
David, let’s see if you can guess who wrote this passage:
They’re called "review copies".
The liberal bloggers I speak about didn’t get a review copy (they even said so themselves that they didn’t read it and weren’t planning on reading it either).
Starscream: I happen to know what I’m talking about when it comes to political books, reviews, and liberal bloggers, and these individuals have all not read the book to review it.
Michael, seems , like Sadly, No ! did get a copy, they even posted the images of the pages for all to see.
Sashal: but Cernig for instance didn’t, and most others didn’t either. If you haven’t read the book, you can’t criticize it. That’s just silly.
And Sadly No! - um. Not exactly unbiased reviewers shall we say?
So, if they don’t have a copy of the book, they can’t weigh in on its central (ridiculous) thesis, but if they do have a copy of the book, it doesn’t matter, because they’re biased.Can we just cut to the chase? This book can’t be criticized unless it’s coming from a conservative who says it doesn’t go far enough. Interesting take for someone who also hasn’t read the book.
Exactly
Exactly. Unless they’re approaching it in a fairly objective manner, something you can’t possibly say about Sadly No!
Wrong. It can be criticized by those who actually read it and by liberals, centrists and conservatives who take a reasonably objective approach to the book (judging it on its merits, its reasoning, etc.).
Also, please tell me how it feels to be an arrogant jackass who doesn’t know what kind of blog he’s visiting?
And , Michael, Jonah is not exactly unbiased writer, with the crooked false agenda to distort history and facts-Actually to make some assumptions and deliberate falsehoods to fit the preconceived idea .
I can do the same trick in my native language.
I would chose a statement or some premise and will work around it to accommodate the half truths or some other scientifically baseless c….
It is actually very easy to do.
Jonah is the very good proof of it. The sad part is not the utter stupidity of Jonah, but the amount of people who are ready to accept his sloppy biased falsehoods….
sorry, Michael, I forgot to add that I have actually read some pages from Jonah’s opus. About gays, about colleges, about food.
I do not need Sadly, NO! or Jon Swift to tell me how stupid and manipulatively lying Jonah is.
I saw it by myself.
"Also, please tell me how it feels to be an arrogant jackass who doesn’t know what kind of blog he’s visiting?"I wouldn’t know.Can you tell me how it feels to be a tool who can’t actually show how a reviewer who shows original excerpts of a book followed by linked, substantive evidence contradicting the points of said excerpt is "biased"? Sure you can! :)
Judging from the vitriol spewing from certain mouths on this blog, Jonah Goldberg must have hit raw nerves. I will definitely have to get this book