Skip to comments.Who is "Fascist" (Thomas Sowell hits the nail on the head)
Posted on 07/24/2008 11:34:04 AM PDT by djsherin
Those who put a high value on words may recoil at the title of Jonah Goldberg's new book, "Liberal Fascism." As a result, they may refuse to read it, which will be their loss -- and a major loss.
Those who value substance over words, however, will find in this book a wealth of challenging insights, backed up by thorough research and brilliant analysis.
This is the sort of book that challenges the fundamental assumptions of its time -- and which, for that reason, is likely to be shunned rather than criticized.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
If America could regain its sanity it would be Thomas Sowell who would be bearing down on the coronation as America’s “first black President”, not the unaccomplished, class-warfare, affirmative action Marxist from Chicago.
Ditto that. He’s a great and brilliant man.
One quote struck me:
“Only after Hitler and Mussolini disgraced themselves, mainly by their brutal military aggressions in the 1930s, did the left distance themselves from these international pariahs.”
Actually, there was one additional trigger required for the left to completely “disown” fascism. Anyone care to guess what that was?
Sowell for VP....
wouldn’t that be sweet !!
here, here. Ken Blackwell would be our governor, too!
Probably losing the war...
There was little in the way of the ideas of the left and the fascists that I had not read before; but there was a wealth of detail of which I was previously unaware.
For those that have never before seen that fascists and socialists, particularly commies, are but two sides of the same coin, I highly recommend this book. For those that have previously recognized this face, I still highly recommend this book.
Yeah... Operation Barbarossa. After Hitler signed non aggression pact with the USSR the Liberals all screamed for FDR to back down. But once they attacked Russia all the libs began screaming for America to attack Germany.
I don't understand one thing though. Nazi Germany and the USSR under Stalin were both leftists. They both believed the same things that the Demonrat liberals believe in, (they just keep some of it to themselves though.) What difference would it make for liberals if Stalin did lose?
Nope. The far left had a gushing love-fest with fascism after August 14, 1939, which affair ended suddenly on June 22, 1941.
They still love fascism, but they understood that they had to keep their heads down for a while or call it something else.
LOL, the invasion of Russia. There you go, sacred ground to any card carrying leftist.
Stalin was a Marxist. Hitler was merely a Socialist. Both on the Left, and if they were allied it seemed like a good thing to anyone who loved the Left. But when the fighting started, American Leftists had to choose sides — and they preferred the Marxist — the glory of the Bolshevik Revolution was central to the self-image of the Left (”I have seen the future — and it works”).
I also read the book and highly recommend it as well.
It would have made a huge difference. Stalin was the 'intellectual heir' of Marxism-Leninism which is the lodestone of liberals everywhere. The NYT was one of the principal cheerleaders for that murderous thug, btw.
Since the USSR was the 'birthplace' of socialism, it had to be defended from 'fascism', even though there isn't a dimes bit of difference between them.
Actually I heard from Chaim Ben Pesach that the NYT supported Hitler too. The guy who wrote the articles praising Hitler and Stalin won a Pulitzer prize for each article. Ironically the guy was a Jew
Hitler attacked the USSR, which the left loved even more than the Fascists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.