PDA

View Full Version : facts your liberal friends need to know



avatar4321
02-19-2008, 07:42 PM
Got this on a Glenn Beck email today. There is no link unfortunately. It's a note from the book review of Liberal Fascism.



**SPECIAL REPORT: The facts your liberal friends need to hear**

This is the first special report in a week-long series with author Jonah Goldberg, investigating how Liberal Fascism is trying to control your life from the cradle to the grave. Don't miss part two tonight on TV: "The new New Deal--what Barack and Hillary have in store" at 7 pm and 9pm ET, only on Headline News. And look for another special report in tomorrow's newsletter.

The facts your liberal friends need to hear
By Jonah Goldberg

Liberals, perhaps more than anyone, believe that we should be vigilant against the threat of fascism. Now, they also believe that fascism can only come from the Right--I think they're wrong. But, what liberals - and everyone else - very much need to understand is that whatever direction fascism comes from, it's popular. Fascism succeeds in democratic countries because it convinces people that it's the wave of the future, it's progressive, it's young, it's vital, it's exciting. Fascist promise to fix what's broken in our democracy, to heal our wounds, to deliver us to promised lands. So if you think fascism comes from the Right, fine. But at least keep in mind that it won't sell itself as dull, or uptight, or old-fashioned.

Let me take a moment to give you a concrete sense of what I mean.

Fascism appealed to youth activists. Indeed, the Nazis and Fascists were in major respects youth movements. In 1931, 60 percent of all German undergraduates supported the Nazi Student Organization. "Their goal," the historian John Toland wrote of the young idealists who fed the Nazi rise to power, "was to establish a youth culture for fighting the bourgeois trinity of school, home and church."

Meanwhile, middle and lower class Germans were attracted to the economic and cultural populism of Nazism. The Nazi party began as the German Worker's Party. The Nazis economic rhetoric was eerily similar to John Edwards "Two Americas" talk. The Nazis promised to clamp down on Big Business - particularly department stores, the Wal-Marts of their day - and end the class struggle. Theodore Abel, an impressively clever American sociologist, gives us insight into why working class Germans were attracted to Nazism. In 1934 Abel took out an ad in the Nazi Party journal asking "old fighters" to submit essays explaining why they had joined. He restricted his request to "old fighters" because so many opportunists had joined the party after Hitler's rise. The essays were combined in the fascinating book Why Hitler Came Into Power. One essayist, a coal miner, explained "Though I was interested in the betterment of the workingman's plight, I rejected [Marxism] unconditionally. I often asked myself why socialism had to be tied up with internationalism-why it could not work as well or better in conjunction with nationalism." A railroad worker concurred, "I shuddered at the thought of Germany in the grip of Bolshevism. The slogan 'Workers of the World Unite!' made no sense to me. At the same time, however, National Socialism, with its promise of a community . . . barring all class struggle, attracted me profoundly." A third worker wrote that he embraced the Nazis because of their "uncompromising will to stamp out the class struggle, snobberies of caste and party hatreds. The movement bore the true message of socialism to the German workingman."

Nazism's appeal to the professional classes was just as strong. Raymond Dominick, a historian specializing in the history of German environmentalism, found that by 1939, 59 percent of conservationist leaders had joined the Nazi party, while only 10 percent of adult males had. Forty five percent of medical doctors had joined and roughly one quarter of teachers and lawyers had. The two groups of professionals with the highest rates of participation in the Nazi Party? Veterinarians were first and foresters were a close second. Dominick found a "unique nexus between National Socialism and nature conservation."

The Nazis and Italian Fascists won-over big business, cultural elites, the youth and the lower-classes because they portrayed themselves as heroically on the side of progress, protecting the environment and the poor. Fascists preached unity, togetherness and an end to division.

Liberals need to ask themselves where do they hear this rhetoric the most?

I'm not saying that merely being for the environment, the poor or national unity makes you a fascist. But what I am saying is that if you're concerned about spotting fascism on the horizon you can't just look at people you don't like. That's like only looking for your lost car keys where the light is good. Huey Long reportedly said that if Fascism comes to America it will be called "anti-Fascism." Liberals can still make their arguments that fascism comes from the right. But until they understand that wherever fascism may come from, it never arrives save in a form that the best and the brightest are willing to accept with open arms.

And if liberals don't know their history, they won't be equipped to spot it when it comes knocking.

Jonah Goldberg is the author of the New York Times bestseller Liberal Fascism.

bullypulpit
02-19-2008, 07:44 PM
Jonah Goldberg is re-writing history. The Nazi party never had more than a slim majority of elected seats in the Parliament, even losing some in the elections of 1933. It wasn't until the burning of the Reichstag by a lone Dutch looney that Hitler was able to convince the Kaiser, and the parliament, to give him extraordinary emergency powers...kinda like the USA PATRIOT ACT, just not as sweeping. The rest, as they say, is history.

avatar4321
02-19-2008, 07:46 PM
Jonah Golberg is re-writing history.

Is that all you have to say about it? "He's wrong!" That's not very productive to discussion.

Yurt
02-19-2008, 07:49 PM
Is that all you have to say about it? "He's wrong!" That's not very productive to discussion.

exactly. more ribald statements with no foundation in reality. you're wrong cuz i say so, i'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say .....

avatar4321
02-19-2008, 07:52 PM
exactly. more ribald statements with no foundation in reality. you're wrong cuz i say so, i'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say .....

fascism at its finest;)

diuretic
02-19-2008, 07:54 PM
Goldberg is being demolished left, right and centre over this. He isn't just revisionist, he's a living example of Orwell's portrayal of the use of Newspeak and doublethink. I think Kathianne and I have discussed Goldberg and his latest offering here.

Kathianne
02-19-2008, 08:17 PM
The problem here is everyone is equalizing fascism with nazis, they are not the same, not by 1933 for certain. Hitler was different.

Check out Mussolini in the 20's and what FDR and other progressives thought of the results, well into the 30's.

bullypulpit
02-19-2008, 08:22 PM
Is that all you have to say about it? "He's wrong!" That's not very productive to discussion.

Then read your history. The Nazi party was never a truly popular movement. True the used the legal and political system as well as gross populism to sneak into power, but once there, they maintained their grip, not through popular appeal, but through propaganda and fear. The same can be said of Italy's fascists, whom Hitler sought to emulate in his early days.

bullypulpit
02-19-2008, 08:25 PM
The problem here is everyone is equalizing fascism with nazis, they are not the same, not by 1933 for certain. Hitler was different.

Check out Mussolini in the 20's and what FDR and other progressives thought of the results, well into the 30's.

By any definition of the term, Hitler was a fascist.

bullypulpit
02-19-2008, 08:26 PM
Goldberg is being demolished left, right and centre over this. He isn't just revisionist, he's a living example of Orwell's portrayal of the use of Newspeak and doublethink. I think Kathianne and I have discussed Goldberg and his latest offering here.

I'd rep you for that, but I gotta spread some joy first.

Kathianne
02-19-2008, 08:27 PM
By any definition of the term, Hitler was a fascist.

And many that were are not in the same category, not all fascists were Hitler.

diuretic
02-19-2008, 08:35 PM
I might be a bit obvious but Mussolini and Franco were fascists, Hitler was a Nazi and although Nazi Germany became a fascist state (I think it did anyway, I'm thinking of the intertwining between the state and the military and industry, eg Krupps) I do think that there is a difference. Anyway they were all authoritarian to totalitarian.

Kathianne
02-19-2008, 08:45 PM
I might be a bit obvious but Mussolini and Franco were fascists, Hitler was a Nazi and although Nazi Germany became a fascist state (I think it did anyway, I'm thinking of the intertwining between the state and the military and industry, eg Krupps) I do think that there is a difference. Anyway they were all authoritarian to totalitarian.

Getting closer. Nazi do not equal fascists, regardless of how the textbooks place them. (remember most texts are written by 'educators', not historians.')

Microcosmos
02-19-2008, 09:05 PM
to compare people who disagree with you to the Nazis. I disagree with you, everybody disagrees with the Nazis, hey maybe if I call you a Nazi more people will disagree with you! Brilliant! :clap:

Yurt
02-19-2008, 09:26 PM
By any definition of the term, Hitler was a fascist.

what is the diff btwn obama and hitler?

flaja
02-19-2008, 11:03 PM
Got this on a Glenn Beck email today. There is no link unfortunately. It's a note from the book review of Liberal Fascism.


I signed up for Beck’s newsletter just to get the Goldberg articles, but for some reason I am not getting anything. I would appreciate it if you could post the rest of his articles here since I don’t yet have a copy of his book.

flaja
02-19-2008, 11:06 PM
Jonah Goldberg is re-writing history. The Nazi party never had more than a slim majority of elected seats in the Parliament, even losing some in the elections of 1933. It wasn't until the burning of the Reichstag by a lone Dutch looney that Hitler was able to convince the Kaiser, and the parliament, to give him extraordinary emergency powers...kinda like the USA PATRIOT ACT, just not as sweeping. The rest, as they say, is history.


The Nazis never won an outright majority in any free election. The elections of 1933 came after the burning of the Reichstag when the Nazis had the full power and resources of the state behind them and the opposition press had been shut down and many opposition candidates were either locked up or had fled the country. And even then the Nazis only won 44% of the vote. It was only with the support of the far right deputies that the Nazis had working control over the Reichstag. And then the Nazis had to have the support of the centrist parties in order get the necessary super-majority needed to pass the Enabling Act.

BTW: Not every historian is convinced that Van der Lubbe is solely responsible for the Reichstag Fire. According to William Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) it was proven at the Dutchman’s trial that he didn’t have the time or the technical capability to set as many fires in the building as were started in the time it took between the first fire and the point at which the entire building was engulfed in flame.

Furthermore, there was no Kaizer after 1918. Hitler was appointed Chancellor of the Weimar Republic by President Paul von Hindenburg.

typomaniac
02-19-2008, 11:07 PM
There's already another thread about this Goldberg clown. Are the rightwads reduced to spamming their own boards now?

flaja
02-19-2008, 11:09 PM
By any definition of the term, Hitler was a fascist.


What is the definition of fascist? And explain why Nazi Germany had as much in common with Soviet Russia as it did with Mussolini’s Italy.

flaja
02-19-2008, 11:11 PM
Getting closer. Nazi do not equal fascists, regardless of how the textbooks place them. (remember most texts are written by 'educators', not historians.')


And liberal ones at that.

flaja
02-19-2008, 11:20 PM
Based on what I have seen of Goldberg on TV over the past week I gather that if you are in favor of environmental conservation (such as organic agriculture) or if you hate Wal-Mart, then you are a fascist/liberal. In this regard, Goldberg is an ignorant idiot.

I support conservation of environmental resources- including organic agriculture- so the world can support more people with the limited resources we have and environmentally friendly means of production can be cheaper than today’s industrial means of production. Saving resources and money are hallmarks of any conservative. And I hate Wal-Mart because of its monopolistic trade practices; since the first Wal-Mart opened in 1987 where I live, my local market has lost something like 16 other retail stores that sold some or all of Wal-Mart’s product lines. And since 2004 I’ve noticed that Wal-Mart is systematically reducing brand choice and raising prices. As a conservative I am opposed to laissez faire economics and monopolies because I am opposed to the concentration of power be it economic or political in either the government or the corporation.

flaja
02-20-2008, 08:20 AM
Quotes from Goldberg.


whatever direction fascism comes from, it's popular.

Then National Socialism is not fascism since the Nazis never won a majority of the vote in any free election, and the Nazis were popular in power only as a result of propaganda and fear.


Fascism succeeds in democratic countries because it convinces people that it's the wave of the future, it's progressive, it's young, it's vital, it's exciting.

Then fascism is not National Socialism since the Nazis were promising to return Germany to its presumed glory days of the past.


The Nazis and Italian Fascists won-over big business, cultural elites, the youth and the lower-classes because they portrayed themselves as heroically on the side of progress, protecting the environment and the poor. Fascists preached unity, togetherness and an end to division.

Is there anything in Nazi literature to back up this claim? Did Hitler ever talk about protecting the environment? I am well-read on matters of Hitler, the Nazis and the Third Reich, but I’ve never seen any claim that there is a connection with the environmentalist movement.

gabosaurus
02-20-2008, 12:06 PM
In that case, what is the difference between Dubya and Hitler?

flaja
02-20-2008, 12:26 PM
In that case, what is the difference between Dubya and Hitler?

You mean other than that neither one is a conservative?

gabosaurus
02-20-2008, 01:52 PM
Jesus was a liberal, you know.

flaja
02-20-2008, 03:12 PM
Jesus was a liberal, you know.

How so?

I see this claim made by liberals all the time, but none of them has been gracious enough to explain why Jesus is a liberal when I ask them to do so.