Jake's Reviews > Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning

Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
M 50x66
's review
Jan 10, 2008

it was amazing
Read in December, 2007

As Jonah Goldberg says, having heard to many times how blithely Conservatives are equated to fascists, he set out to prove the philosophical, ethical, and historical continuity between the modern liberal who makes such accusations, and concrete fascism. He makes the point that the word itself doesn't mean much except a synonym for evil with a connotation of the Holocaust. His thesis seems to be that liberalism or progressivism, socialism/Bolshevism and Fascism are all intellectual heirs of a few philosophical errors, namely, that man is perfectible through human agency, that a human utopia is not only within our reach, but is attainable through a simple reordering of social structures, and that the individual good is always subject to the good of the whole.

Gets better with every page you turn.
5 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Liberal Fascism.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

02/12 marked as: read

Comments (showing 1-12 of 12) (12 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Winston Modern conservatives ARE fascists. They have consistently only defended their own civil rights.


message 2: by Tucci78 (new)

Tucci78 - What are "civil rights"? The expression is so blithely used by the leftards in order to excuse their actions to violate the unalienable individual human rights of people they don't like, but do any such leftards ever consider that civil rights bear solely upon the relationship between the private person and the officers of government? That it's simply not possible for a private citizen - acting as such - to breach the civil rights of another human being? Sheesh! Silly question....


Winston So embryos deserve more protection than women, Tucci?


message 4: by Tucci78 (last edited Sep 09, 2014 02:08AM) (new)

Tucci78 - "So embryos deserve more protection than women...?" Tsk. To the default leftard, the embryo/fetus isn't a "person" at all (and can therefore have no rights, "civil" or otherwise), while to the religious whackjob on the right, "every sperm is sacred." It seems a wonderful certainty that the leftard will flash his tochus in public on the issue of voluntary termination of pregnancy (which is a matter of a woman's right to a property in her own body) or some other hot-button emotional issue every time he has his nose rubbed in the cognitive dissonance at the core of his political malignancy.


Winston Way to evade the issue. Let me try again.

Should blood donations be mandatory?


message 6: by Tucci78 (new)

Tucci78 "Way to evade the issue." Eh? What "issue"? Your effort to perpetrate the strawman fallacy?

"Should blood donations be mandatory?" In what sense? As government thuggery in the enforcement of the same kind of claim on the physical person of the private individual as is intrinsic to the concept of conscription? Of course not. In order for a government to be considered legitimate (in the Lockean sense held by the Founders), the officers and other agents of said government must be subordinate to the sovereignty of the citizen, their only real purpose being the discharge of their duty to preserve said citizen's unalienable individual human rights.

How far up your own cloaca do you intend to shove your head, anyway?


Winston So thuggery where wombs are concerned is OK, but thuggery when it comes to blood donations to save lives isn't? How does that make sense?

Consent to sex isn't equivalent to consenting to pregnancy. I suggest you watch this debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P78_V1...

I bet you hate the LGBT community since they will never have an unplanned pregnancy.


message 8: by Tucci78 (new)

Tucci78 "So thuggery where wombs are concerned is OK, but thuggery when it comes to blood donations to save lives isn't? How does that make sense?"

Well, of course "sense" is not your objective, is it? But it's mine, so let's crowbar your blithering malignant idiocy to the benefit of reasoned discourse.

Were the officers of civil government to intervene with deadly force (which, after all, is the sum total of their social currency) either to prevent or to perform the deliberate termination of a woman's pregnancy against her will, that's an improper - read "criminal" - exercise of government power.

So is the forcible extraction of blood (you've got a friggin' peculiar usage of the word "donation" there, don'tcha?) for the benefit of somebody else, allegedly "altruistic" or not.

Thus we also dispose of your "Consent to sex" rat droppings. See how that works out?

"I bet you hate the LGBT community...."

Er, no. Why should I? As long as what they're doing doesn't aggressively violate the unalienable individual human rights of anybody, my personal prejudices (pro or con) are irrelevant.

Anything that's peaceful, eh?


Winston So forcing abortion or lack of abortion is violent oppression?

Congrats. You're pro-choice.


message 10: by Tucci78 (last edited Sep 09, 2014 04:26PM) (new)

Tucci78 "So forcing abortion or lack of abortion is violent oppression?

"Congrats. You're pro-choice."

Well, yeah. To quote the astonished and dismayed Republican staffer: "My God! They're pro-choice on everything!"


message 11: by John (new)

John Geiling The left is only pro choice on 2 items. Whether or not you kill a baby and where you stick your wiener. Every other issue is government controlled.


Roger I liked the book mainly for the history. People that I have recommended it to have liked it as well. In my younger days, I called a few conservatives "fascists". The book does a great job of putting some of that sloppy thinking to rest and I get it that the author was tired of that broad brush. But fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views. Fascism is still considered by certain scholars to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism so I think the book cannot be given 5 stars for historical accuracy.


back to top