Friday, January 30, 2009

The age of the Liberal Facists is here!!

I was reading the Book Review section of the Sunday Times the other day, and I quite enjoyed the piece on a book called Liberal Facism by Jonah Golberg.
The book was first published in the US about a year ago and it has now been published in Britain.
The book notes how close leftist ideology is with facism. And how political correctness is facism in action.
Indeed, much echoes what I learnt at university. That facism stems from Mussolini and the Italian trades unions. Facism and Socialism are just two faces of the same collectivist ideology.
National Socialism, International Socialism, same thing really!
Now, Goldberg has published a piece noting facist ideology underpinning The ObamaMessiah, as well as Tony Blair. Much stems from unity of thought, collectivism i guess, rathyer than individualism and liberty.
Political correctness is part of it, in ensuring it is upto the state and social engineers to change things, whether we like it or not.
And if we disagree, we are to be silenced, just as student unions when I was at university liked to deny a platform to anyone who they deemed racist, sexist or homophobic and you would be branded a facist if you said something the left disagreed with.
This week, I came across a couple of disgusting examples of such Liberal Facism in action.
Archbishop Cranmer blogs about the Islamic ZanuLiarbore peer in the UK House of Lords who has blocked Dutch MP Gert Wilders from giving a private showing of his movie Fitna.
All these silencings of free speech and debate remind me of the aims of Uncle Helen's own Electroal Finance Act, a classic example of Liberal Facism in New Zealand. I am sure we can find other similar examples.
Indeed, we know how the left like to attack individual freedoms, with our watermelon Greens being prime promoters, perfect facists. Look how they seek to ban or control so many things, be they light bulbs, pies, etc, etc.
So yes, the Liberal Facists are here. In the the White House, in Whitehall, in the Beehive and in our Town Halls.
It is time we lovers of freedom exposed them and stopped them!




28 comments:

Lee C said...

Not forgetting that apotheosis of Liberal Fascism - The Greens...

Psycho Milt said...

So you and Goldberg don't know anything about socialism or fascism but are happy to construct fantasies about them that suit your ideology? Quelle surprise...

Psycho Milt said...

Also, that pic of Obama is a truly offensive piece of shit - what were you thinking?

Lucy said...

Thats right Psycho Milt attack the messenger and not the message.

unfortunately the point keeps on being proven. How about debating what is said rather than who said them.

Foe example what exaactly did they say about socialisim or faccism that was incorrect and how was it incorrect.

Why was the photo an "offensive peice of shit"

I am really interested inboth sides of the arguement.

KG said...

"Also, that pic of Obama is a truly offensive piece of shit - what were you thinking?"
Perhaps he was thinking of the eerie similarities between them PM? Such as a charismatic liar elected on the promise of "change" and a collectivist utopia? Or is it the similarities between them when it comes to electoral corruption and the dodgy associates?
Come to think of it, Hitler's election was probably less corrupt than Obama's....
Anyway, they're both collectivist, dangerous assholes.
At least Adolf is dead.

KG said...

And Goldberg doesn't know anything about socialism or fascism? Would that you had one tenth of the man's intellect.

Danyl said...

Political correctness is part of it, in ensuring it is upto the state and social engineers to change things, whether we like it or not.

Political correctness tells us we should treat the different (disabled people, say) with dignity, while fascism tells us we should either sterilise the disabled or murder them. So yeah, basically the same thing - good call Darren.

Ironically, one of the defining tenets of fascism was its opposition to liberalism, so Goldberg's thesis makes as much sense as a book about 'Totalitarian Anarchy', 'Secular Sharia' or 'Free-Market Communism' (FFM will be blinking in confusion but I think most other readers will get my point).

Also ironic is that Hitler didn't actually run on a campaign theme of change - he appealed to deeply conservative (mostly religious) voters as a bulwark against the liberal and socialist parties. You really hit this one out of the park Fairfacts.

Dave Mann said...

Lucy, Milt was referring to the picture being an offensive piece of shit, not FFM. That is attacking the message (i.e. the offensive piece of shit pic), not the messenger.

And, of course, Milt is perfectly correct. The picture IS an offensive piece of shit. Whether or not socialism leads necessarily to fascism is an interesting matter for further debate.... but the pic remains an offensive piece of shit regardless.

Psycho Milt said...

unfortunately the point keeps on being proven.

What point? That Fairfacts and Goldberg don't like lefties? Well yes, that point is thoroughly proven and I offer no contrary view. Beyond that there isn't any point, as far as I can see.

Re the photo: it's intended to be offensive, it succeeds in being offensive and I suspect you don't actually have any difficulty at all recognising the fact.

KG: you recall Adolf (ours, not Hitler) going on about "Bush Derangement Syndrome", ie the loonier fringes of the American left who could find any number of scary parallels between Bush and Groefaz? Take a look in the mirror, pal.

And re Goldberg's supposedly superior intellect and grasp of the subject: Slate provides an accurate assessment of that here.

peteremcc said...

"Ironically, one of the defining tenets of fascism was its opposition to liberalism."

Yeah, but back then, liberalism meant what we now call classical liberalism, so you've just proved the point you're trying to oppose.

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

I did wonder about the pic as it maybe a little over the top.
But it's good to stir a reaction.
But think about it.
By saying you should not use a pic like that, aren't you being a little facistic in wanting to suppress something.
Still,Goldberg does liken Obama and his unity principles to facism so the use of the pic can be justified.
But isn't it great to have and enjoy the debate.

And KG is right in questioning how Obama was elected, be it how his team shafted Hillary Clinton, the alleged voter fraud and the stories about people voting for Obama just because he was black.
I recall that radio programme interviewing the Obama voters and when questioning them on the issues, they actually prefreered McCain and Palin.

Psycho Milt said...

Fairfacts, if you define "fascism" as "stuff I don't like," then no it's not great to have the debate.

As an example, consider this:

By saying you should not use a pic like that, aren't you being a little facistic in wanting to suppress something.

This is exactly what Goldberg does (it's also a Redbaiter favourite). Here's what I said about your picture:

that pic of Obama is a truly offensive piece of shit - what were you thinking?

In other words, I really don't like that picture. You turn that expression of dislike into attempted censorship on my part:

aren't you being a little facistic in wanting to suppress something

Which is wrong first because I haven't actually expressed any desire to suppress your picture (which as blog admin I could do fairly simply), and second because censorship is a feature of all societies to some extent, but most particularly of conservative ones.

And that second reason it's wrong is exactly why Goldberg's book is crap. He takes any features he doesn't like from any period of modern history, no matter how typical they are of societies down through the ages, and declares them indicators of fascism. Anyone you want can be made out a fascist on that basis.

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

Fair comment PM.
I accept you are not a facist.
But certainly in the other examples like at the LSE, the House of Lords, and student unions, as well as the EFA, the attempts to silence denate are cases of facism in action.
Thus we see much liberal facism from the left.
I have read stories about the donks wanting to shut down shock jocks like Rush Limbough.
I have yet to veryfy such tales but they too sound facistic to me.

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

Oh BTW I have found another lovely pic of the Messiah for a caption competition.

Danyl said...

Here's fun.

FFM - what's your definition of fascism?

Anonymous said...

Dumb picture done by a dummy made even dumber by the misspelling of "Sieg".

Taking Goldberg seriously? My sides are splitting and I'm not laughing with you FFM. Still, 'No Minister' is always good for a laugh. Not as intellectual as lolcats but funny in its own way.

If you can bring yourself to read something about Obama by someone who knows a little more about these things than a schmuck like Goldberg, try this article by Simon Schama:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/presidents/simon-schama-the-great-hope%E2%80%94barack-obama-1482927.html
(sorry the URl is so long)


I know the voice of reason is somewhat akin to nails down a blackboard here at 'No Minister' (PM excepted) but take a deep breath and give it a shot.

Schama's also a good writer and you might learn a bit from him about phrasing, argument construction and generally making sense.

Peter H

Mr Dennis said...

"Political correctness tells us we should treat the different (disabled people, say) with dignity, while fascism tells us we should either sterilise the disabled or murder them. So yeah, basically the same thing - good call Darren."

Fascism tells us we should sterilise the disabled or murder them.

Liberal socialism says we should test for disabled people and murder them before they are even born (something like 90% of Downs babies are now aborted I understand). Political correctness says we can't object to it.

So yes, FFM is correct, the two are very similar.
http://sjdennis.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/breast-cancer-you-dont-deserve-to-live/

Psycho Milt said...

Liberal socialism says we should test for disabled people and murder them before they are even born...

I eagerly await your reference for this astounding new policy of "liberal socialism," never having heard of it myself.

Dave Mann said...

Oh shit... I'm starting to lose my perspective now. Am I a rightie or a leftie?

I'm lost. I know I'm not a Greenie, but am I a closet pinko? What if I find that True Blue is the wrong shade too...? Maybe I'm purple.

I'm sooooo torn. Perhaps the old labels no longer apply? Fuck, that would be REALLY scary... like, if there were no proper labels any more.

Can I still wear my Think-For-Yourself No-PC-Bullshit Resist-Mind-Police Tee shirts?

Anonymous said...

That Fairfacts and Goldberg don't like lefties?

Don't like? What the fuck does liking have to do with it.

A few lefties, at least, may be quite nice, normal, hardworking, taxpaying members of society. You might even like them if you met them socially.

but for the good of society they should all be liquidated, every single one, and all their kids

Psycho Milt said...

Yes, well of course we do have one genuine fascist among the regular visitors to this blog - who is, no surprises here, neither a liberal nor a socialist...

Mr Dennis said...

PM:
"I eagerly await your reference for this astounding new policy of "liberal socialism," never having heard of it myself."

Ok, maybe I should change what I wrote to "Liberal socialism says we MAY test for disabled people and murder them before they are even born...". I am referring of course to pre-implantation and in-utero genetic diagnosis and abortion-on-demand - which are policies supported by liberal socialists the world over.

You ignore the fact that this is eugenics just like Hitler was practicing, only before birth rather than afterwards. This is a major similarity between modern liberal socialism and fascism.

Psycho Milt said...

1. True, liberal socialists (by which I assume you mean leftists in general) tend to the view that we may test for genetic abnormalities and abort on the basis of the results - as do classical liberals, libertarians and people who generally don't give a shit about political ideologies. It's not really a socialist thing.

2. Hitler didn't give a rat's ass about eugenics. Himmler did, but so did a lot of other people back then, including a lot of conservatives in the USA - characterising it as something peculiar to Nazism is just plain wrong.

Mr Dennis said...

PM:
1) No, classical liberals and libertarians are divided on this issue. Some will argue for abortion on the basis of the mother's perceived right to choose. Others will argue against abortion on the basis of the child's right to the non-initiation of force against it - which I regard as a stronger argument. Although many people from many different philosophies do support pre-birth eugenics, it is only among liberal socialists where this view is fairly universal.
Libertarians for Life

2) Yes, eugenics had wide support initially. However it was under nazism that it was used to its full extent, and when this became known to the wider world eugenics was (officially) rejected by most people - now it is coming back.

Anonymous said...

why not read the book PM and danyl and then come back and debate the point.

I have, its strangely compelling. I'd never heard of the Blue Eagle movement in the States, or how keen the US Democrats were to learn from Mr Mussolini about how to run a truly progressive movement. Most interesting.

Oh hang on, its easier to cover your ears and shout the book down!

Psycho Milt said...

OK, now you're conflating genetic testing with abortion in general. Arguing with ideologues puts one on a hiding to nothing, but I'll at least make the attempt: if you want to claim acceptance of genetic testing is not a characteristic of liberal/liberatarian ideology because there's a little diversity of opinion among them, but it is characteristic of socialist opinion because there's no diversity of opinion among them, you've created a tough job for yourself in demonstrating exactly how there could be no diversity of opinion on this issue within what would have to be the world's most argumentative and schismatic group of people. As an example of what a daft idea that is, two words: Christian socialists.

Re eugenics, if you read your history books you'll find the USA has nothing much to be proud about in that respect either. And like their German counterparts, the American eugenicists were anything but socialists.

Psycho Milt said...

Anonymous: you mean, it's possible Goldberg's book doesn't include the foolishness attributed to him but does include arguments that actually make sense? Frankly, I tend to the view that if there were compelling arguments within the book, reviewers would probably mention them, and that the ludicrous buffoonery they do mention tends to suggest compelling arguments are unlikely to be discovered in there.

Anonymous said...

It's a common weapon of lefties to attack the messenger rather than responding to the message. Labour ministers were outstanding at this, especially during question time in the House. May they enjoy their long years to come in the wilderness of Opposition, poetic justice, at last.