Liberal Fascists Go Insane over “Liberal Fascism”
Tags: Liberal Fascism.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Seems that Jonah Goldberg’s book – two years after publication – is gaining traction and, thus, starting to take a lot of flack. Read here for more.
My view: Goldberg gets it exactly right. This is especially true in light of my own assertion that all non-conservative views ultimately stem from the same, flawed source. Liberalism, as I’ve said, rests upon the falsehood that Man is perfectible by men. That our problems stem not from our fallen nature, but from the unjust systems and that if we can just change the system, we’ll change ourselves. Heaven on earth will result.
From that initial folly has stemmed all the rest – and thus liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism and Nazism are branches of the same, poisoned tree. Of course, to point any of this out – especially in a best-selling book – is to irk the liberals to no end. They insist that things like Nazism and fascism have nothing to do with liberalism – in spite of the obviousness of the relationship.
I think – for justice and for the sheer fun of it – that once we gain a commanding majority in the Senate, we should void the censure of Joe McCarthy (arguably liberal fascism’s most prominent American victim) and have him set up with a Presidential Medal of Freedom. It’ll get the dogs off Goldberg and provide us hours of entertainment.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
38 Responses to “Liberal Fascists Go Insane over “Liberal Fascism””
Caucus of Corruption
launched a bizarre and at times delusionally paranoid attack
Hmmmmmm THAT sounds awfully familiar to BFV’s own TROLLS.
00 forker
sadie forker
barney frank -aka KFC
etc
is that you??????
From that initial folly has stemmed all the rest – and thus liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism and Nazism are branches of the same, poisoned tree. Of course, to point any of this out – especially in a best-selling book – is to irk the liberals to no end. They insist that things like Nazism and fascism have nothing to do with liberalism – in spite of the obviousness of the relationship.
Do you hear that razmaz?
see i was right……poor rasmass
http://www.wayodd.com/head-up-your-ass/v/4735/
Mark: I think – for justice and for the sheer fun of it – that once we gain a commanding majority in the Senate, we should void the censure of Joe McCarthy (arguably liberal fascism’s most prominent American victim) and have him set up with a Presidential Medal of Freedom. It’ll get the dogs off Goldberg and provide us hours of entertainment.
Now there’s a plan that would further the GOP cause!
Ricorun,
Probably not one in 50 Americans really know what McCarthy was about, so I doubt Democrats could make much hay with that…but, bottom line, McCarthy was right and he was unfairly maligned by a campaign of slander from the left. Remember – McCarthy didn’t want to name names in public, but the Democrats insisted and, additionally, the number of communists alleged in government didn’t change on McCarthy’s part, but because Democrats kept confusing the issue of who was what.
So this is what got kmg’s panties in a wad when he(?) went after me with so much venom and accused Goldberg of being “insane”. I wondered how Goldberg got onto the RRL radar so long after his book was released and without being up front on the media circuit for so long.
But of course—kmg had gotten his(?) talking points from some RRL minder, and was dutifully regurgitating the pap he(?) had been fed.
The RRL depends on the ability to gull the populace into associating Hitler with the Right—it’s been a cornerstone of their American recruitment for decades now. It is a real threat to point out that Hitler’s unique political creation, a hybrid socialist/fascist construct with a few Hitlerian flourishes, was actually just a point on the Leftist spectrum, and that the word “Nazi” was really an abbreviation for National SOCIALIST Party. So I can understand that now, as the word ’socialism’ is being used so frequently (and so accurately) there has be a push to get it sanitzed, and therefore to go back to the Leftist canard that Hitler’s socialism was really right-wing.
Of course this all depends on dipping into the RRL arsenal of redirection and redefinition. Whereas “right wing” in this country really means adherence to the Constitution of the United States, the RRL, going back to Uncle Joe Stalin, has conveniently redefined it to mean all sorts of ominous things.
And efforts to clarify their obfuscation of the truth are labeled “insane” by their mouthbreathing, spittle-flying, lemming legions.
It sounds like maybe rico has bought into the McCarthy hysteria.
I love it when McCarthy is accused, for example, of the Hollywood blacklist episode.
Joe McCarthy identified, by name, certain very highly placed Communists within the US government. This was at a time when having a Communist in upper levels of government was akin to having the Taliban or Al Queda in a similar position—an enemy within the gates.
And he was later proven right. Every name he named was shown to be a Communist.
Concern over communist infiltration into the government at that time was legitimate and prudent. Now that we have self-identified communists as advisors to the president, our sensitivity to this threat seems to have diminished, and it is easier to pretend that McCarthy was a hysteric, or a nut.
But in fact he was simply an unlikable personality and an easy target for the redirection and distraction tactics of the Far Left—the problem was not the infiltration of the enemy into seats of power and access to high-level information, you see, it was this loud-mouthed man pointing it out.
And the historically illiterate have bought into the RRL rewriting of history.
Though rico does have a point, in that this historical ignorance WOULD make approval of McCarthy a political hot potato.
Amazona, do you have any evidence for your claims?
However, if you can ever justify trying American Citizens while denying their right to representation and their right to confront their accuser, I would like to hear about it. After all, the Constitution is pretty clear about that sort of thing.
For the uninformed:
—Amendment VI, Constitution of the United States (emphasis mine)
goldberg equation –
liberalism bad, conservatism good.
simple enough that even a wingnut can understand!
00
and 100% correct!!!
thx 4 confirming my point neo!
00
this being the point?
liberalism bad, conservatism good.
glad you agree finally!
Rana: McCarthy was proven when the Venona files were made public back in the 90’s. EVERY person he officially named as a commie spy was confirmed by Venona.
Also, McCarthy had nothing to do with the Hollywood “blacklisting,” McCarthy’s part was to investigate possible commie spies IN GOVERNMENT. The House UnAmerican Committee (HUAC) were the ones investigating commie spies elsewhere. And no, McCarthy was not a member of HUAC.
Tfmo
a never publicized fact, Joe Mc had a young assistant on the HOUA panel, a man known to be a RABID anti communist, a man Mc Carthy had to refrain from his aggressive investigating and prosecution..ROBERT F. KENNEDY
Ah yes, I had forgotten!
Its funny how the commie liberals like to trot out the Kennedy brothers, considering how much both R and J loathed commies.
So amazona thinks I went after her(?) with venom the other day? All I can say is that she(?) has some pretty thin skin. But then any disagreement with her(?) means that your panties are in a wad. (And for the record, it’s boxers. My wife and daughters wear the panties in our house.)
The epitome of wingnut welfare, Jonah Goldberg, is in the news lately due to the snake oil salesman, Glen Beck, featuring him on his show to perpetuate the canard of liberal fascism.
There are only two types of people who repeat Goldberg’s nonsense: those who are too stupid to realize how idiotic Goldberg’s book is and partisan hacks who do realize it, but intentionally repeat the lie in order to get more people into the first category.
By all means, KFC. Impart your vast knowledge and research and refute Goldberg’s book.
I’ve got plenty of popcorn and coffee. Bring it.
tfmo,
I’ll let Dave Neiwert do the work.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/liberal-fascism-response.html
A reporter and editor for MSNBC and Crooks and Liars. Yeah, no bias there.
Or credibility. Try again.
tfmo
Ha Ha ….KFC’s standard bearer is some pooch who wrote “how HATE talk radio energized the right”.
They cant go one step past saul alinsky old tired out accusations of “hate”, “raaaacism”, “sexxxxism” or any other negative lable they can throw out to stick on the wall……..PATHETIC!
*******************************************************************************
Transition and Transaction
The transition of the old Democratic Party to what exists today should not surprise or confound conservatives. Nor should Alinsky’s tactics seem foreign. After all, for nearly 40 years, Republicans and the conservative agenda have been getting hammered by the left through the successful use of Alinsky tactics.
In any event, Alinsky’s rules include:
* “Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.”
* “Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
* “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
* “The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself.”
* “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”
* “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” (Think Gingrich, Lott and the success of name-calling used by the likes of Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, James Carville, Maxine Waters and others against conservatives and Republicans. Think of how Clinton “enemies” like Paula Jones or Linda Tripp were treated.)
* “One of the criteria for picking the target is the target’s vulnerability … the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract.” (Trent Lott comes to mind. Meanwhile, a former Klansman by the name of Sen. Robert Byrd got away with saying “nigger” on Fox News at least three times, and he still maintains his Senate seat and power.)
* “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.
Of course, Republicans reaction to all this is to immediately go on the defensive. Seldom do they unleash their pit bull orators or strategists. Rather than use the immense amount of data available to prove the conservative case, Republicans tug their forelocks, say “yes sir,” and hope the accusations and name calling will go away.
full article
http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm
tfmo,
And Goldberg is unbiased and credible? Can you name any unbiased people who support his thesis?
tfmo
got a new “buddy” ?? LOL
Have you actually READ the book, KFC? I did. And when I first read it, I found some of it pretty unbelievable.
So I researched those items. Where he makes assumptions, that’s his opinion. Where he states fact, it is fact. He makes a clear distinction for both in his book. Unlike the O-junkies at MSLSD, who call their commentators journalists and present their opinion as fact while treating actual facts as just someone else’s opinion.
Neiwert and the rest of the leftist goons in the media are to real journalism what the Flintstones are to historical accuracy.
So, the answer is no, you can’t find any unbiased people who believe Goldberg?
And no, I haven’t read the book. I’ve read excerpts and critiques, but I have no intention of contributing to Goldberg’s wingnut welfare.
yfmo
KFC is the poster boy of Glen Becks book “ARGUING with IDIOTS”.
his questions are like asking if you can find any unbiased people who buy into marx, mao, hitler ?….STUPID is as STUPID does.
tfmo
KFC = And no, I haven’t read the book.
do I hear lemming/useful idiot?
BWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAA Ha Ha Ha…..!!!!!! ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!
You haven’t read the book. So shut up.
By the way, you don’t have to buy the book to read it. There’s this amazing place, wherein there are books, tons of them, and you can borrow them for a set period of time. But don’t worry, if you haven’t finished reading it by the end of the allotted time, you can borrow it again. Us big kids call them LIBRARIES. Most towns have at least one. And if your reading skills just aren’t up to snuff, some of these books come on tape. Of course, you have to be able to LISTEN….
To KMG1 and all who state I must be “too stupid”.
The liberals who are currently personified by the president are totally enamored by the “bait and switch” tactic – famously employed by Mussolini and Hitler.
Wikipedia states that Fascism is governed by “the belief that the majority is unsuited to govern itself through democracy”. More “wingnuts” ?
Your use of pejorative labels only discredits any comments you have made.
You haven’t read Neiwart, either. You didn’t even bother to read his critiques of Goldberg. All you did was look up his bio and dismiss him because he contributes to MSNBC, so you shut up.
If you define terms with wikipedia, it is pretty obvious which group you belong to.
KFC
just because one has not read the koran in full, does not mean one can not recognize what an evil cult islam and it’s practitioners are.
the same goes for you commie liberals.
Fmr,
just because one has not read Liberal Fascism in full does not mean one cannot recognize what morons Goldberg and his acolytes are.
Wrong again, KFC. I did read his critiques. I have also read his articles. You think your mention of him was the first time I’d ever heard of the dink?
I’ve seen his stuff on his site. I’ve seen the kind of job he does on MSLSD and at Crooks and Liars.
Unlike you, I don’t just take someone’s word for something. If there is a doubt, I look into it, whether it’s said by someone I respect and usually agree with, or someone I don’t, or someone I’ve never even heard of.
It’s called Keeping Oneself Informed. Might try checking into that sometime, Karl Marx’s Girl 1.
Sure you did.
Sure you did.
Seriously?
THAT’S what you’ve got? What are you, TWELVE?
Good god, grow the hell up.
If you actually had looked into Goldberg’s claims you should have come to a different position than slavish devotion to his thesis. I leave you with a critique from American Conservative, which is not kind to Goldberg.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/jan/28/00028/
kmg, stretch that tiny little mind a little, just a little, and read Golberg’s description of early fascism, its acceptance by the Left, its role in Italian politics, etc. and then dispute WHAT GOLDBERG WROTE.
If you don’t agree with some or all of his conclusions or opinions, fine. But the key element to me is the factual history of fascism, where it developed, what it meant at the time, who adopted it, who supported it, and where it sat on the Left-Right political spectrum.
Like every single “ism” it evolved, changed, and was redefined. But its early history is indisputable. It happened. It is a matter of record. And merely fuming because the fact don’t fit into your extremely narrow ideology (which you have yet to define, beyond knee-jerk attacks on conservatism) won’t change the record.
So take some time, read the first couple of chapters that outline the formation and early history of fascism, and get back to us with an informed opinion.
I read the article you linked, kmg, and found it to be an opinion piece on the book. The fact that it was printed in The American Conservative doesn’t mean much. I don’t know the magazine so I don’t know if it really IS conservative in nature, or just broad-minded enough to print a variety of different opinions.
The author cherry-picked different things he found offensive in the book, but I also noted how carefully he rephrased comments and took them out of context, creating his own context. It was a clearly biased review. Not to say that it was false—just pointing out that the style was emotional and overwrought, the content was clearly carefully chosen to support his position, and it was hardly an objective analysis of the book. And many of the conclusions reminded me of the false conclusions of such as Ranty Rhodes and Tom Hartmann.
The context of early fascism was that of the Left. It was embraced by the self-described Leftists of the time, it was part of the spectrum of Leftist dogma, and it had no relationship whatsoever to the term that later became fashionable to use in referring to Hitler. For example, early fascism (which we can consider ‘true’ fascism as it had not yet morphed into any of its future mutations) was the antithesis of anti-Semitism. The Jewish intellectuals of the day, the very heart of the Left, were an important part of the Italian fascist government, and great supporters of fascism in America.
One of the problems is the constantly shifting definition of “Right”, politically speaking. It became fashionable to claim that “right-wing” meant favoring big business. It’s a simple-minded distillation of a small aspect of a result of small government—-freedom of enterprise does often result in big business—but it is hardly an accurate or complete definition. It is merely convenient.
Worldwide, the basic differences are that the Left is always a collective approach to government, and top-heavy, with a large and powerful government entity. The Right is always more of an individual freedom, free-market, approach, with a government model more like a pyramid, with the power at the base and the government quite limited in power and scope. Dragging in individual quirks of individual regimes in different countries, at different points in time, to try to prove or disprove a specific point, merely muddies the waters.