You don't normally associate liberal pet causes like global warming with fascism, but National Review Editor at Large Jonah Goldberg makes a good case for why you could.
Goldberg appeared on January 15 at a Borders Bookstore in downtown Washington, D.C. to promote his new book, Liberal Fascism. According to Goldberg, tactics like comparing climate change skeptics to people "who believe that the Earth is flat," is comparable to those used by the power brokers within the rise of fascism during the early 20th century.
[Click Here For Audio]
"The only people who say we need to get beyond ideology, get beyond labels, are the people who want you to shut up, you to stop disagreeing and agree with them," Goldberg said.
According to Goldberg, the talking points Gore uses (and parroted by the media) to promote the global warming issue as a "planetary emergency" go against the principles of democracy.
"That's why Al Gore says things: ‘The time for argument is over, the time for discussion is over,'" Goldberg said. "Well, this is a democracy and democracy, the time for discussion is supposed to never be over. If you take out the idea, if you champion the idea that unity is good in of itself, that the collective is a good in of itself regardless of what it is doing, then you are buying into a fundamentally fascist political aesthetic."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I caught Jonah Goldberg on
January 16, 2008 - 18:09 ET by BDI caught Jonah Goldberg on CSPAN the other night. Awesome discussion. His book will INFURIATE the left who have had no response on this discussion for fifty years.
I was concerned that he sipped water every twenty seconds. kind of freaked me out.
BD - sipping water
January 16, 2008 - 18:28 ET by Gary HallI suspect some wacko is going to surmise that he's drinking a lot of water to keep sea level from rising too fast. gh
What's good for the Goose-Steppers......
January 16, 2008 - 19:34 ET by BarkerAnyone who doesn't believe that liberal fascism is real probably believes the Earth is flat.
The time for argument is over, the time for discussion is over.
fas·cism
January 16, 2008 - 19:25 ET by RESTLESS 1fas·cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control
Yup, sounds like democratics to me.
I have to buy this
January 16, 2008 - 19:41 ET by wiwfI have to buy this book!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Mussolini is absolutely spinning in his grave!
January 16, 2008 - 20:10 ET by SyriusI'll just let the quotes from Benito Mussolini, the founding father of Fascism, speak for themselves...
"Liberalism is not the last word; it does not represent any final and decisive formula in the art of government...Today the most striking of post-war experiences, those that are taking place before our eyes, are marked by the defeat of Liberalism."
"Communism and Fascism have nothing to do with Liberalism."
"Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary...does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."
"Fascism is a religion."
"Fascism now throws the noxious theories of so-called Liberalism upon the rubbish heap."
-Benito Mussolini
I have more quotes if you'd like...
Jonah Goldberg needs a lesson in history.
Syrius
Syrius, you forgot your
January 16, 2008 - 20:17 ET by Gary P JacksonSyrius, you forgot your hero Benito made the trains run on time also!
Even liberals are scrambling to think up a new name for themselves, you know, like "progressives".
Liberalism is a disease pure and simple. The effects of it has ruined many people's lives.
He ain't my hero...
January 16, 2008 - 20:27 ET by SyriusGary,
What's conservatism to you? Anti-liberal?
Most of the things you take for granted were created by "liberalism" advocates, liberals so to speak. It's amazing how much conservatives take for granted.
Tell me, how has liberalism ruined your life...? What have you benefited from having liberalism in your life?
Too tough to answer?
Syrius
So it's all or nothing in
January 16, 2008 - 20:57 ET by wiwfSo it's all or nothing in regards to liberalism with you, eh, Syrius? If you like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you have to praise Hillary Clinton because she's a liberal. Get a clue, neo-liberalism is nothing like classical liberalism.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Syrius, you clearly have
January 17, 2008 - 09:14 ET by Ryan Mc.Syrius, you clearly have never studied political science. Benito was referring to classic liberalism. The type practiced by the founding fathers. It means democracy, free trade, the stuff conservatives support today. What you refer to is modern day socialist liberalism. Benito loved that. He wanted the state to have absolute power because he was the state. His model was Louis XIV. They were indeed very illiberal. Very classicly illiberal.
Mussolini is referring to
January 16, 2008 - 20:49 ET by FlashmanMussolini is referring to classical Liberalism. The term Liberal has been co-opted by the radical left and they've
sullied it to such an extent that they're busy re-branding themselves as progressives. Of course there is nothing remotely progressive about the left, their policies have been tried before in many places and they have always
failed.
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
~ Winston Churchill
Good Point
January 16, 2008 - 21:10 ET by not_lima_H"The term Liberal has been co-opted by the radical left"
If the word weren't so soiled I would call myself a classical liberal. I think the teachings of our founding fathers are timeless and fundemental. Often someone like Alexander Hamilton (not_lima_H =Hamilton) is considered a classical liberal.
flashman -- we crossed
January 16, 2008 - 21:04 ET by Jack Bauerflashman -- we crossed posts on Il Duce.
Sure, he was clearly referring to liberalism as would later be practised 40 years later by a washed up generation of ex-hippies, radicals and hate filled leftoids.
This guy really is a dimwit. I blame current Leftademia.
Though I have to admit Il Duce would have recognized the power of hate that the left unleashes all the time. They truly are the rightful heirs to fascism and it's totalitarian breatheren.
Right down to the underlying anti-Semitism that so animates the left.
Sullied the term 'Liberal'...?
January 16, 2008 - 21:06 ET by SyriusFlashman,
I do believe you are truly incorrect on the radical left sullying the term 'liberal'. The term has been under attack from the right wing for decades. The term 'liberal' is used by the right wing to create & brand a set of people in which to attack. Liberal policies under FDR, The New Deal, created the largest expansion of the middle class, which the elites have been attacking since their inception. The policies actually have worked for the past 60+ years. The rollback of those policies are creating havoc in the middle class. There's more financial inequality now then there was before FDR. Keep shoveling...
Syrius
Wrong again. The left
January 16, 2008 - 21:20 ET by Jack BauerWrong again. The left co-opted the term "liberal," as it sounded so much warmer and fuzzier than the hated (but accurate) "socialist," which is the antithesis of Classical Liberalism.
The right merly used it against them by turning "liberal" into a pejorative term.
So successful were we, that the quasi-socialists thrashed around for another term, and have glommed onto "progressives."
Which is equally inept, because "liberals" and the "left" are utterly reactionary. I mean, what is more reactionary than actual "socialists"... then liberals... then progressives, putting forward the failed nanny state socialist ideas of the late nineteenth and the twentieth centuries.
That's as reactionary as it gets.
I'd have though you might be more bashful in wading into subjects upon which you seem to know very little.
All it takes is Faith
January 16, 2008 - 22:06 ET by PSPCplSyrius doesn't need to know anything. All that he has is his blind faith in the god of big government. When you bow down at that alter, you are free to inflict and infect everyone with your stupidity.
Excuse me while I whip this out.
January 16, 2008 - 22:07 ET by CrashThe modern day liberal certainly reminds me of Orwell. Don't Smoke, unless is medical pot. Don't kill villains,though, babies are open season. Burn flags and giant stick-men, but, don't grill outside. The list goes on ...
Dare I say, Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin would have given modern liberals a long ride in boxcars. Then again, the modern liberal would have joined up with those tyrants until the coast was clear; much like they did for the few months following 9/11 by displaying a temporary flag sticker on their Honda Civics. "Of course I'm American. What kind of Indian would say, God bless George Washington, God Bless America!?'"
Syrius Enlighten yourself
January 16, 2008 - 21:38 ET by FlashmanSyrius
Enlighten yourself on the link below.
http://en.wikipedia....
Classical liberalism is not to be confused with the ideology that is commonly called "liberalism" today in the United States, as "classical liberalism" is actually closer to being a tendency of "conservatism" in the U.S.
"Progressive" origins
January 17, 2008 - 11:44 ET by pbanks7Anyone who has read David Horowitz' book, Radical Son, knows that American Communists called themselves "Progressives," and caucused with (read: infiltrated) the Democrats.
So I was not surprised when the L's started calling themselves, "Progressives." It fits.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.
Actually you need a lesson
January 16, 2008 - 20:55 ET by Jack BauerActually you need a lesson in the classical meaning of liberalism.
You really are too stupid for your shirt. Goldberg is talking about the bastard, perverted version of post-war "liberalism," where American leftists glommed onto the word "liberal" as some sort of badge of honor.
Of course their idea of "liberal" has nothing to do with the actual root of the political, social and economic philosophy that would be recognized by Adam Smith, et al.
Quoting Mussollini as your source on the meaning of "liberal" only reinforces my point. And shows you to be the ignorant tosser you so amply demonstrate at every opportunity.
Did they really teach you bugger all at your high school?
Keep to the discussion...
January 16, 2008 - 21:23 ET by SyriusJack,
Personally attacking me, instead of discussing the issue at hand, only reinforces your own stupidity. Alas, I just don't feel like engaging in any type of debate with you if you continue telling me how stupid I am. Educate me, Jack. Show me the way. Let me see what you see...
Actually you need a lesson in the classical meaning of liberalism.-I'm waiting for your education.
Quoting Mussollini as your source on the meaning of "liberal" only reinforces my point. -It's about fascism...
Did they really teach you bugger all at your high school? -Are you a Brit? 'Bugger'? Who uses 'bugger'?
Perverted versions of definitions pigeon-holed into attack mechanisms is what I see...
Syrius
What a pathetic post. Do
January 16, 2008 - 21:32 ET by Jack BauerWhat a pathetic post. Do your own learning doofus.
Here's a primer, read, Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations. Hell, just read something ABOUT him.
Then come back and try having an informed discussion.
Why do you insist on advertising your OWN ignorance. But thanks for admitting that you have no idea what you are talking about in regard to the use of the term "liberal" by Jonah Goldberg.
That's a start.
A simple question?
January 17, 2008 - 09:05 ET by Mulligan22Syius, have you actually read the book to know just how Mr. Goldberg is applying the meaning of his title? If not I then you are just applying your own beliefs and not using the authors' intent.
Syrius, I guess you must
January 17, 2008 - 11:52 ET by wiwfSyrius, I guess you must hate giving civil rights to blacks, because all that was done with Republicans and conservatism.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
The term "liberalism" had a
January 16, 2008 - 22:25 ET by robert108The term "liberalism" had a different meaning then. As a matter of fact, it stood for individual independence and freedom of thought, just like modern conservatism. That was the liberalism Benito the fascist railed against.
Thanks Robert, you took the
January 16, 2008 - 23:28 ET by dmntd1Thanks Robert, you took the wind out of my sails!
European liberalism is more akin to American Conservatism. Such was the confusing, for many, relationship betwixt a 'liberal' Margaret Thatcher, and a 'conservative' Ronald Reagan. This was ever more so during the decade prior to the Second World War.
I really think that questioning others' masculinity is a game probably better left to people who haven't had more cock in and out of them than a Tyson Chicken regional distribution center. AceOfSpades 06162007
Syrius, you tool, do some
January 17, 2008 - 13:57 ET by MikeBSyrius, you tool, do some background research into the meaning of words in the timeframe you are quoting from. What we today label "Liberal" is actually not "liberal" in the classic sense which was the sense used by Mussolini. Today's "Liberals" are actually varying shades of socialists. (Her Thighness sHrillary's shade is dark red...with a yellow hammer and sickle.)
The positions held by the Reaganite wing of the Republican Party are the positions espoused by classical liberals, who were the ones Mussolini was railing against.
Today's "liberal" Democrats are illiberal and anti-liberal. They have just hijacked the language via Political Correctness and Newspeak. They believe so much in Marxism that it has become a religion to them. Hillary wants to take those profits from the oil companies and other corporations. She wants to take things from us for the common good. Very few, indeed, are the Democrats who do not believe that the money earned by individuals is actually the Democrats' money to spend. Class envy and warfare are the everyday tools of the Democrat party, and they wield them like a bludgeon. It is ironic that the Democrat leaders excoriate the rich like the Nazis excoriated the Jews, considering that the leaders of the Democrat Party are composed of the rich. Do a search for the net worth of the Senators and Representatives in Congress.
Syrius, you need a lesson in history, and Mr. Goldberg is the one who could deliver it to you.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Too bad he's trolling and
January 17, 2008 - 19:33 ET by wiwfToo bad he's trolling and won't come back to this forum because he got his butt whooped.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Sounds Great
January 16, 2008 - 20:15 ET by not_lima_HI was listening to Goldberg earlier today and he talked about the origin of the term "right wing". The soviets were losing the battle for the hearts and minds of people to the nazi's. Commies love word manipulation so they started labelling them right wing. Even though the nazi's were for strong, centralized government and individual freedom came second to the state. They were, in fact, liberals.
Um... Yes We Do
January 16, 2008 - 20:20 ET by stratman"You don't normally associate liberal pet causes like global warming with fascism, but National Review Editor at Large Jonah Goldberg makes a good case for why you could."
A number of NewsBusters posters do and have for quite some time.
Worthy book but no epiphany in this forum.
Sure to be hidden behind copies of Obama's book or Mother Earth News magazine by the typical Border's customer and/or employee.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
When it says libby libby, libby on the label, label, label....
January 16, 2008 - 20:36 ET by WoodyMI recall the past cries of Democratic candidates who, when called liberal, said, "I don't believe in labels." If they are practicing liberals, then they should be proud of that title and wear it as a badge of honor. But, of course, I realize that we live in a democratic republic until they take over, so they have to continue fooling people for now by not believing in labels.
Liberal Fascism
January 16, 2008 - 22:02 ET byFascism involves an iron rule movement, usually racist like the Nazis, with a dictator like Hitler.
I just don't see how pushing for better MPG cars qualifies as "Liberal
Fascism," even it they are wrong about why global warming is happening.
President Bush just backed and signed a law requiring better MPG, is he a LF too?.
How is Al Gore ever going to be fascist dictator? He won't even run for office.
"Fascism involves an iron
January 16, 2008 - 22:28 ET by robert108"Fascism involves an iron rule movement, usually racist like the Nazis, with a dictator like Hitler."
That would be Comrade Hillary. Al Gore and the MSM are simply the Ministry of Propaganda for Clintonco.
Why didn't Bill go fascist dictator?
January 16, 2008 - 22:49 ET byWhy didn't Bill go fascist dictator when he had the chance? Was he
waiting for Al's movie and Hillary? What about Congress, how's Hillary
ever going to fire them?
It's just a bumper sticker. Most everyone just laughs at these labels,
and they want better MPG cars, if for no other reason to save money.
If Chevy put out a two seat Malibu for $15,000, and it got 40 MPG, I'd
buy one in a heartbeat. 90% of the back seats don't get used past high
school.
pizza boy
January 16, 2008 - 23:35 ET by botgyou sure he didn't?
GoHunter08
"I just don't see how
January 16, 2008 - 22:32 ET by robert108"I just don't see how pushing for better MPG cars qualifies as "Liberal
Fascism..."
It should be up to the citizen what kind of car he wants to buy, not a govt mandate. See the difference? Besides, the so-called "fuel efficiency standards" have nothing to do with fuel efficiency; they are actually attempts to suppress consumption. The cars would have to be smaller, lighter, slower, and they carry less. In other words, less work performed. You get less for your money.
robert
January 16, 2008 - 22:49 ET by botgnot to mention more dangerous in an accident
GoHunter08
→ Legalize Tata's
January 16, 2008 - 23:40 ET by Cool ArrowHere's where we're headed with the new CAFE standards. Personally, I prefer bigger tatas.
I ♣ My Seal
Pizza Boy Need More Education, Less TV
January 16, 2008 - 23:14 ET by PSPCplYou either have freedom or you don't. If you use the government to do anything other than what the Constitution has mapped out, than you don't have freedom.
Second, a free market works best when there is as little government interference as possible. Any government action that limits economic choice and/or removes consequences introduces inefficiencies into the market.
The problem is that the Leftoids feel that they know better than anyone else AND have little faith in the Masses to do what's best (they need someone, i.e, THE LEFT, to look out for them). What is worse is that they truly believe that you can sacrifice some freedom and still be free. They believe that surrender is better than confrontation. You only have rights if you agree with them. If you disagree with them, you're a (fill in the blank).
Their philosophy, beliefs, and patholgical need to control others make them fascists and the enemy of democracy.
PSPCpl needs less Kool-Aid
January 16, 2008 - 23:29 ET byYou're wrong, with out social program we'd be like Mexico: no schools, no highways, polluted drinking water
Most rich people wouldn't be rich.
How do you explain Ennor and Halliburton?
Pizza Boy needs to learn how to make pizza not ask for it
January 17, 2008 - 00:00 ET by PSPCplPB, your comment shows your color (RED). You failed to follow the man's advice to shut your mouth and leave some doubt. You think that humans are incapable for taking care of themselves and that they don't look out for one another. Thank God that isn't true and that 90 percent of us consider ourselves Christians. Do you need me to spell it out for you or can you connect the dots?
I believe in being free and not being a slave. I believe in helping people to become free. I want to see people succeed. So do the rest of us. We are willing to help people learn how to make pizza, not stand in line asking for it. We are willing to lend a helping hand to pull someone up, not put them over our shoulder and burb them.
The problem is that being red allows you to do anything in the name of your god, big government.
PSP
January 17, 2008 - 00:06 ET by botgwhen did enabling irresponsible behaviors become the Democrats platform?
GoHunter08
BOTG,
January 17, 2008 - 00:13 ET by PSPCplWhen they realized that the growth of the middle class meant that they were loosing the ability to practice class warfare.
PSP
January 17, 2008 - 00:17 ET by botgso they created a permanent subservient class for use as a voting block?
GoHunter08
→ Subserviant under class
January 17, 2008 - 00:21 ET by Cool ArrowWell, most don't vote yet, but this underclass is one of our biggest imports.
I ♣ My Seal
BOTG, Proof is there if you want ot see it
January 17, 2008 - 00:57 ET by PSPCplYes, what else can you call when you are dependant on the government for a hand-out? What else do you call it when you promise someone that Big Momma will take care of you if you put them into office?
What else do you call the inner city populations? They receive sub-standard education and are prevented from sending their children to better schools. The Dems in charge have taxed businesses to near death reducing job oppurtunities and raised taxes on the successful folks and property owners to the point where they are leaving the cities thus exacerbating their decline (Philadelphia and Baltimore are glaring examples).
They claim to stick up for the little guy yet they (not publically of course) define a nurse and cop as rich when they set the tax tables.
They claim that any attempt to fix Social Security will cause Grammy and Gramps to have to live on dog food.
They have made it fashionable and easy to be a single mother, yet all of the studies show that single mothers and their children are more likely to live in poverty than not.
They divide us in order to conquer us. Seem harsh? What else to you call it when you demonize people for being successful, take away their property, and re-distribute it to the poor in return for their vote? What else do you call it when you keep people from acquiring the means to increase their human worth? What else do you call when you create more oppurtunities for more people to be poor than to be rich? What else to you call it when you make it easier to sit at home,watch TV, and collect welfare?
I agree with Ben Franklin when he advised that we should make it uncomfortable to be poor. He explained that he didn't mind helping someone, but that the help should be difficult to get and should not be long in duration with every attempt made to help the individual to find gainful employment.
and thus it is with
January 17, 2008 - 21:33 ET by botgall enablers, they only are fulfilling their own needs. The enabled party ends up worse off, so when the enabler to claims to be trying to help----it's a lie. Try explaining it to them and you will be greeted with the classic emotional response exhibited by someone in denial.
GoHunter08
Kool-Aid boy
January 17, 2008 - 00:16 ET byActually I make the best pizza in the world from my own milled flour and mashed potatoes.
In the summer I make my own sauce with tomatoes from my garden.
I make a Calzone from my pizza dough, smoked ham from my smoker and ricotta cheese I make from milk.
Why do you think I picked this name?
no pro-active
January 17, 2008 - 00:19 ET by botgsolution? <well ya did have to ask>
GoHunter08
Pizza Boy, and that has what to do with the price of tea?
January 17, 2008 - 01:12 ET by PSPCplI applaud you for your cooking skills and your pizza sounds wonderful. The problem is that social programs and the such are little better than theft as far as I am concerned. Paraphrasing my Babba Anna, taking welfare is the same as living off the sweat of another person's brow. I wouldn't get so upset about them, but the Leftoids have made it easy and shameless to take someone else's money and have done so with the help of the RINOs.
"You're wrong, with out
January 17, 2008 - 08:56 ET by Ruths husband Ben"You're wrong, with out social program we'd be like Mexico: no schools, no highways, polluted drinking water"
I would like you to prove any part of that statement. The reason that Mexico is in the shape it is in is not because they don't have social programs it is because they have corruption from the highest levels of government to the lowest. Now, I can prove that. But let's see you prove your assertation first.
Fascism
January 16, 2008 - 23:29 ET by dmntd1I heard Jonah speak on the radio in the past couple of days regarding this. He clearly differentiates between fascism and nazi-ism. Fascism is the iron rule movement, Nazi-ism is the iron rule movement with a racist bent.
I really think that questioning others' masculinity is a game probably better left to people who haven't had more cock in and out of them than a Tyson Chicken regional distribution center. AceOfSpades 06162007
HG Wells/fascism
January 17, 2008 - 00:11 ET by mastersofdeceitI heard Goldberg on the radio on monday. I think he said the title comes from something HG Wells came up with in the 40's. I had to get out of the car so I did not hear the whole thing.
And if you tolerate this,
January 17, 2008 - 00:05 ET by fitzfongAnd if you tolerate this, then your children will be next...
Jonah Goldberg was fantastic
January 17, 2008 - 12:36 ET by EvokeJonah Goldberg was fantastic on 'The Daily Show' last night. Stewart tried and tried to make Goldberg look foolish but failed outright. I'd like to see more of this guy on television.
What didn't John Stewart want us to see?
January 17, 2008 - 13:48 ET by CrashFunny thing was how Stewart introduced the 6 minute interview as being choppy having been cut by 12 minutes.
daily show / jonah goldberg
January 17, 2008 - 20:48 ET by balboaIt was interesting how Goldberg started out sort of distancing himself from the cover and title of the book.
I'd love to see the whole discussion, because I thought Stewart brought up good points that Goldberg didn't seem to be addressing, or couldn't address directly.
Global warming?
January 21, 2008 - 18:22 ET by RazmatazI have never trusted the Al Gore approach to global warming as a means to stop the use of fossil fuels for our energy. Check out this refuting evidence. http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/01/censored-global-warming-videos.html
I do think, however that use of non-renewable sources do head us on a path for destruction. The quicker that we can figure out how to use renewable sources at affordable prices, the better off our society will be.
In the solar arena, two ideas our on the horizon that may be available for residentail use with the next two years. One is thin film technology and the other is a solar lease model. I follow both ideas in my blog at www.solarjoules.com