Liberal Facism
by Jonah Goldberg
Jonah Goldberg is the Washington correspondent for a Southwestern newspaper, the LA Times. The Southwestern interests are clear; he is clearly pro-Bush and at the same time he is anti-French. Furthermore, his rantings clearly contradict the facts. He does not believe that Mussolini had anything to do with anti-semitism in the holocost, yet claims that the French eagerly cooperated with the Nazi deportation program.
Goldberg has the gall to say that the Italians protected the Jews while the French eargerly cooperated with the Nazis. (pg 17). But on page 25 he describes the expulsion of Jews from the Italian Facist Party before Hitler invaded. They then sent them to death camps after Hitler invaded Italy in 1942. Yet, in contrast, the French were invaded and defeated by the Germans in 1940! It was the Germans that the Allies met at Normandy on D-day for CHR%@ST's sake. Furthermore, many in the Vichy (Government of defeated France) did everything possible to save lives from Germans. Admittedly, there were exceptions. The most significant exception was Laval, who was placed in government offices because of the demands of the Germans. After the war, he was tried and executed in Fresnes Prison.
Liberal Facism is a book that describes the manipulation of the thinking of the masses for the benefit of a few. Goldberg even uses this podium to suggest that many beliefs of a significant number of people are the result of mass delusion. An example of this, he suggests is the fact that 1/3 of Americans believe that the 9/11 terrorist acts were the result, in part, of the failures of the United States government. Furthermore, he promotes the French Revolution as the founder of Facism, yet blames it on their anti-religious (Catholic) program, rather than a program of appropriation of property to the "free". He further claims that Nationalism itself is a liberal concept, away from religion. Perhaps that is currently so, but to distance oneself away from those that consider themselves the "chosen people", such as the Jews, or the dualists of Protestantism is not inappropriate for non-believers, even if some would consider that rhetoric.
I prefer a new definition of left and right, one not based on the seating arrangements in the French Assembly.
>>>>>>>>Extreme Left - Nothing is mine
>>>>>>>>Left-Center, it's not mine until proven other wise
>>>>>>>>Right center - it's mine until proven other wise
>>>>>>>>Extreme right - it's all mine.
>>>>>>>>Facism:
The Third Way - "give it all to us".
>>>>>>>>It uses the left to benefit the few, just as the Amei-
>>>>>>>>can neoconservative movement does.
"Third Ways" of thinking are dangerous to those outside of the rhetoric. Hitler used every group he could to get his way, a "Third Way". He used a Lutheran who wanted to convert Catholics, he used the SA working party to come to power, and he used the Catholic educated SS to eliminate the SA workers.
In many ways
Liberal Facism can be labeled an "anti-Franc Gold-Kampf". It is probably the best example of Liberal Facism to include the neoconservatives of the Southwest to be placed in writing. Not right or left, but his third way - A Southwestern desert way. It is not Rousseau's way nor was it Lavoisier's way.
Save your money, don't buy this rhetoric.
